Posted: 9/21/2010 5:56:03 PM EDT
|
I want to address the teaching of focusing on the front sight. As far as basic marksmanship is concerned I have absolutely no problem with this teaching as your eye can only focus on one thing at a time and it is the middle object of the three. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, I’m referring to the rear sight, front sight, and target.
There are a lot of firearms schools that teach to focus on the front sight when shooting. While I can respect this teaching, the reality of it is that it is not a good teaching when it comes to defending yourself while out on the street. This teaching is based upon unrealistic perceptions of how a confrontation actually takes place. Since about 80% of confrontations take place from 0-6 feet, in order to see your front sight you would have to bring the gun up to eye level or shoulder level and bring your head down to it depending upon how you were taught, or prefer to shoot. The problem with this method is that at such close distances you would be extending your arms out towards the threat or threats and that’s not at all a good idea. One reason it isn’t a good idea is because the gun can be taken away from you. Another thing is that if you attempt to do this against a knife wielding attacker they may cut one or both of your hands or arms possibly causing you to lose your gun and very possibly limiting your options for survival from that point on. More than likely you will focus on the threat and not your front sight. If you focus on your front sight and not the threat, you may very well force yourself into tunnel vision (if you aren’t already there) and that’s not a good thing. People kill people with their hands so you need to watch their hands. You need to try and take in as much of your surroundings as possible. And, if you are focusing on the front sight you may miss other things that are critical to your survival or you may not see the innocent person standing behind your threat and try and shoot the threat and miss (which is highly likely to happen) and hit the innocent bystander because you were too focused on the front sight. Is there a time and place for “sighted” shooting? Yes! However, it is the exception to the rule and not the norm. If you are at a distance of 11 or more feet away, sure, sighted shooting may be necessary. However, if you are more than 10 feet away from the threat or threats, what are your chances of hitting them and taking them out of the fight? If you are 10 feet or more away from the adversary should you shoot? No one has ever proven that focusing on your front sight during a confrontation increases accuracy. Just as no one has proven that two handed shooting in a life or death situation will increase accuracy. The average hit ratio is around 20% due to the dynamics of the fight. Theoretically a two handed shooting platform seeing your front sight would increase your accuracy, but even if you are lucky enough, and I emphasize lucky, to hit your target, it is highly unlikely that you will immediately reduce the threat or threats. If you don’t agree with that last statement, maybe you should watch our YouTube videos on caliber and shot placement. Caliber Shot placement part 1 Shot placement part 2 Simply put, if you are within “10 feet” of the attacker you shouldn’t be shooting with your arms extended outward towards the threat. If you are going to use your gun you should be shooting from some type of retention format. I am a big fan of laser sights because you probably won’t see your front sight or sights at all. For those of you who disagree and think that you will see your front sight and you will extend your arms out towards the threat in order to shoot when you are within 10 feet, I wish you the best because odds are you are fooling yourself as to what is going to really work or even happen in a real life or death situation. One important thing to remember, the gun isn’t your salvation! As always… Train hard, train often, and most of all, train realistically! Brian K. LaMaster |
|
I was involved in a firefight overseas. I remember seeing my sights clearly. However, that was all at longer ranges.
I have never been involved in a real up close and personal handgun fight. However, I have been involved in many force on force drills with Simunition marking rounds. I have literally fired thousands of rounds of marking rounds most of which were in force on force gun battles using both M16 conversion kits as well as Glock and Sig guns. I remember focusing on the target and VIVIDLY SEEING MY GUN SIGHTS. The front sight was clearly visible and I used it to hit the target. I am a police officer and the closest I came to a shootout was a guy who pulled a gun on me and my partner. He never ended up pointing it at us and ended up dropping it. I remember seeing my front sight sitting on his chest and had I needed to shoot, I'm sure I would have seen it. He was between 8 and 10 feet away (he was standing on the bumper of a truck and I was by the cab of the pickup) With TRAINING you will see your front sights. With no or limited training, no you will probably not see the front sights. I credit marking rounds with giving me the ability to see my front sight. If you try to learn gunfighting on a square range with only live ammo, you are missing out. |
|
Gringop, welcome to the REAL world!
You only watched 20 seconds and came to the conclusion of exactly what? That what was said was wrong? So you didn’t even watch the videos and you said God have mercy on our students... Really? Well, if you watched the three videos and you still think that you are going to hit your target and immediately incapacitate them, all I can say is that you are deceiving yourself. God have mercy on YOU for believing the mindset of typical “defensive” firearms training with a handgun while out on the street . FYI, the information comes from the FBI’s report and it clearly states the truth about what people don’t want to hear, or teach. Most people do not train realistically so they will never realize the truth about what is being taught (for defensive handgun training) and just how ineffective it is for most civilian life threatening situations. There’s a 96% chance that IF you do shoot “at them” them they will live through it. Let me do the math for you. There’s only a 20% hit ratio, and only 20% of people who are shot die. The question is, how many die on the spot…Probably less than 1%. So, there is a 96% chance that they will remain in the fight and possibly injure you or even kill you. ColtRifle With all due respect, what “works” in Force on Force does not mean that it is valid in the real world. People will do things in training where lives are not on the line that they wouldn’t attempt to do when real bullets are flying their way or a live blade is trying to cut/stab you. People tend to believe that if it works in FOF training that it will work in the real world and nothing is farther from the truth. You can learn what NOT to do faster than what will actually work. I’d say that FOF training is the best method of training for learning just that. Law Enforcement and Military “tactics” are not necessarily or even most of the time “transferable” to CIVILIAN encounters. As you know as a LEO, you can keep your distance thus allowing you the space to utilize your sights. I’m not disputing that. If you are at close distances as in CIVILIAN encounters, which is normally 10 feet on in, then “sighted” shooting is not practical (or wise) in most encounters. If you have someone attack you in training in a realistic manner then you will QUICKLY realize you won’t have time to see your sights, or that you shouldn’t make the time to see them because the threat will probably be too close to attempt to see your sights, and you should start shooting right out of the holster from a retention format. That is, IF you should shoot. I don’t know the specifics of your FOF training, but if you did anything realistic within 10 feet against an attacker with a knife or gun, then you probably got your hands/arms cut and your hands got shot because most people will be shooting at you COM. Or, the subject can be on top of you and take your gun away or push it away and do damage to you. Unfortunately, FOF training is still controlled training. Because lives aren’t on the line and everyone is going to go home at the end of the day, it becomes a “game” to an extent. FOF training can teach you things that you will not learn on the square range. I am a fan of FOF training if it is done correctly and it is put into proper perspective. When we teach SWAT Teams we teach to use the sights because the weapon is already in hand and that is different than how civilians are going to be starting out in the fight while out on the street. Of course you saw your sights overseas because you were probably using a long gun and it was already in hand and the enemy was far enough away you had to use your sights. One more thing about you saw your sights and were ready to shoot when you were 8-10 feet away… You probably had body armor on which allows for you to take rounds and still live. Most civilians won’t have body armor on. With all due respect, if you were 8-10 feet away from a suspect and you drew your gun and stuck it out there where all he had to do was take two steps, it probably wouldn’t have been pretty for you because the likelihood of taking him immediately out of the fight with a handgun is slim. Keep in mind that 11%-14% of officers are killed with their own weapon every year. I’d say that extending your arms out towards the attacker when at such close distances would be a primary contributing factor to officers being killed with their own gun. Civilian encounters are different than LE or Military encounters. I will write another thread stating how they are different, the main difference being the APPROACH to the fight which means EVERYTHING. The thread will be very long and it is going to take some time to write. In addition, we are starting to teach LEO’s the tactics that we teach civilians and not teaching civilians typical firearms training which much of the time stems for LE training. Some LEO’s who have been in the struggle for the gun situations are starting to realize the training they have received wasn’t suitable for a lot of the situations they are likely to find themselves in. We have several LEO’s who train with us on a regular basis because they understand that we know how to handle ourselves without a gun using unarmed combatives, and that the handgun is a poor tool to get the job done and they can’t count on it to do so. We’ve had people from most of the “big name schools” take our Integrated Concealed Carry course and when they were attacked realistically, not only did they have trouble getting their gun out and on target, they also realized they should be shooting from retention most of the time. Most of the “trained” people died in most exercises when faced with a knife wielding attacker because of the mindset of the typical defensive handgun training. The newbie’s who never received any formal training did better because they were worried about staying alive and not getting the gun out!!! I can tell you that EVERYONE who leaves the class learns that the gun is not the solution, especially not how it is commonly taught. Taking the time to see your front sights when you are not in a life threatening encounter seems like a good idea and it may get more rounds on target in training, but it has NOT BEEN PROVEN to do so in most civilian encounters. Focusing on the front sight is THEORY at best! Not forgetting that it is EXTREMELY dangerous in most civilian encounters. Here’s a fact people, just because someone (regardless of who it is) has been teaching something for so long doesn’t mean that it is effective or realistic. Until you fully understand how things really happen in civilian encounters from an unarmed perspective, you will continue to believe the teachings of typical handgun training for situations while out on the street. I guess that I forgot that I did a video on front sight in a confrontation. Respectfully, Brian K. LaMaster |
|
You are right. My original snarky remark about your videos was not a good evaluation of your concepts and teaching. Let's see if I can do better.
No one has ever proven that focusing on your front sight during a confrontation increases accuracy. Just as no one has proven that two handed shooting in a life or death situation will increase accuracy. The average hit ratio is around 20% due to the dynamics of the fight. Theoretically a two handed shooting platform seeing your front sight would increase your accuracy, but even if you are lucky enough, and I emphasize lucky, to hit your target, it is highly unlikely that you will immediately reduce the threat or threats.
Can you give any background for these statements? Cite some sources? "No one has ever proved 2 handed shooting improves accuracy"?????? "You have to be lucky to make hits beyond 10 feet"???? There’s a 96% chance that IF you do shoot “at them” them they will live through it. Let me do the math for you. There’s only a 20% hit ratio, and only 20% of people who are shot die. The question is, how many die on the spot…Probably less than 1%. So, there is a 96% chance that they will remain in the fight and possibly injure you or even kill you.
Since about 80% of confrontations take place from 0-6 feet
You are using statistics about hit ratios, survivability and distance to make up numbers about armed confrontations. Just because 80% of past confrontations that the FBI has numbers on are 6 feet or under, doesn't mean that you only train for 6 foot or under situations. Taking the time to see your front sights when you are not in a life threatening encounter seems like a good idea and it may get more rounds on target in training, but it has NOT BEEN PROVEN to do so in most civilian encounters.
WTF would you like to see as proof? Has NOT seeing the sights been proven to allow you to prevail? I don't think that any experienced trainers or students would deny that you shouldn't leave your gun hanging out at full extension when the attacker is at close range. But to say that front sights are useless and shots beyond 10 yards require luck invites ridicule. Adding in some Jethro Bodine math statistics doesn't help. If you want to market your training as focusing on close encounters and emphasize shooting from retention, that's great. Southnark has been doing great with that for years. Although he doesn't teach "Kobudo, the fighting style used by the Ninja of Japan (Ninjutsu)" so you might have an advantage there. When you come on a forum that has many experienced trainers and students and offer strong opinions, ridiculous statements, poor math and videos where you don't look at the camera while speaking to the audience, you should be ready for a little pushback. Respectfully, Gringop |
|
So what range do you start to use your sights, or teach your students too? I watched your video "front sight in a confrontation", and noticed you never mentioned anything about moving, are you just going to stand there shooting from retention, or try to move away from the threat?
While you make some interesting points I went back and reread your posts/website, and have to say there is a lot of  mixed in with those interesting points. You have to remember that we are responsibly for every round that leaves our firearms, thus if you can get a sight picture then it would be irresponsibly to "point shoot".
Heres a good video by someone with some experience shooting bad guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3nGbN7RxpI |
|
Brian, why the "quotes" around the word tactics when speaking of military and law enforement?
Do you know more about them than us? And by us I mean current/former military and LEO's. Have you ever been in the miltary or an LEO? Are you an expert becuase you are a ninja that has trained with Tactical Response? That's true guys, it says so on his instructor bio. I have used tons of tactics I learned in the military and from LEO training that work. Notice how I typed it without the "quotes"? If this was an attempt to get people to train with your orginization is was a huge failure. You look even smaller by getting into pissing matches with people who disagree with your original post. We know nothing of your experience and you nothing of ours. Good day sir. |
|
I used to do a LOT of jackrabbit hunting, the little bastards are about the size of a soccer ball and they can do about 40mph across open terrain. I used to just look over the top of my scope with both eyes and fire, it's amazing how effective that was.
If I can hit a 40mph soccer ball sized target at 50 yards regularly with this technique, I CANNOT see how I could miss a man-sized target at the same range at a much slower speed. Flame away, I'm here to learn. |
|
I'll bite.
The 40 mph soccer balls were not shooting back at you triggering a fear/survival response, which means your body wasn't full of adrenaline and your shorts weren't full of shit. When you are the apex predator with no fear of losing your life you have all the time in the world to get down a technique like that. When your prey has the ability to kill you thnigs change. Tell you what, drink two red bulls, run 100 yards and try your technique while a buddy shoots at you with a paint ball gun. Your front sight becomes very important all the sudden. |
|
Hang on to your seats, this is going to be a rough ride for some of you…
Now, some of you went places that you probably shouldn’t have, but… I’m a good sport. Just don’t take it personally or get upset because you don’t agree with what I say. Let me correct my stats only because I am human. Forgive me father for I have sinned with the math god’s. There’s only a 20% hit ratio. Only 20% of people who are shot die. I took 20% of 20% and got 96%... MY fault! I will admit it. You called me on it. At least you were paying attention! Well, now that we have gotten that out of the way… I’m sure this is going to make you feel MUCH better!!! So, one out of five people are shot die. However, we still don’t know how many die on the spot! I am confident that less than half of them die on the spot. If only 20% of people who are shot die, then let’s use the figure of every 100 people who are shot, 20 of them die. Now, let’s assume the immediate death rate is high, so, we will be optimistic and say it is 50% because I want you to believe that you stand a good chance of successfully using your handgun in a fight. So, 10 of the 20 who died from being shot died on the spot, which is still only about 10% immediate incapacitation rate (of course, if my math is right). Which means that you still have a “90%” chance that the threat is going to be an immediate threat. According to my calculations you gained a whole 6% from my initial figure of 96%. I’m sure that you feel so much better about that figure than the first and it was worth your efforts to try and make me look bad. Just to double check my Jethro Bodine math so that pa and granny can understand what I just said… 100 people shot 20% die as a result of being shot 50% of 20 who are shot die = 10 (who die on the spot from being shot). That would be 10% (of the original 100 people are shot) who are shot die on the spot. Check and double checked. So, you have anywhere from 0-20% chance (on average) of immediately eliminating the threat or threats with a handgun while out on the street. Someone please tell me what sounds good about these odds for survival when using a handgun to defend your life with the methods currently taught by most firearms instructors? Of course, we don’t know if the shooters used point shooting, aimed shooting, or “oh crap” shooting. And of that 20% who die, we don’t know how many died from the mental aspect of being shot and not the physical effects. Of course I know there are lots of instructors here and I expect you to defend what you teach. After all, I don’t agree with most of what is being taught by most instructors teaching “self defense with a handgun” and I’m speaking out against what I truly believe are things that are very likely to get people injured or killed. In any case, I respect ALL instructors in the firearms and martial arts world even if I don’t agree with them. I know that there are a lot of “trained” people on this forum. The question is HOW have they been trained? With the 20% hit ratio methods…? That’s exactly why I am here or on any discussion forum. Like it or not, you will be hearing a lot more from me, most of which you won’t agree with (I’m sure). I’m not and never will be picking on instructors who teach basic handgun safety and shooting as they are doing an excellent job of that. Most any instructor can teach people that. NRA instructors are great for that and I would tell just about anyone to seek out an NRA instructor for the Basic Pistol Course or the equivalent thereof. However, when it comes to the realistic application of a handgun for civilians while out in public, very few people truly understand and teach life saving skills with a handgun. Again, I reference the low hit and death ratios as good solid ground on which to stand for what I have been saying and will continue to say in this thread and others. Are you an expert because you are a ninja that has trained with Tactical Response? That's true guys, it says so on his instructor bio.
Who I have trained with in firearms or the lack thereof has NOTHING to do with what we teach. Why, because the handgun is unlikely to immediately stop the threat or threats dead in their tracks and the FBI’s report clearly states that. Is the way that most people teach how to use a handgun realistic and effective? No, it’s not and no firearms instructor taught me that. I learned how to use my hands, knife, stick, rake, ballpoint pen, etc. in my unarmed training, and what makes a handgun so much different that I have to go to the “firearms experts” to learn how to use something that is in my hand? I’d say NOTHING is different. And, with typical defensive handgun training only yielding on average a 20% hit ratio, I’d say that something needs to change… After all, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things but expecting different results. For the most part, firearms’ training hasn’t changed very much in the past 20 years. So, you decide for yourself from what I’ve already said whether or not most of the training is effective and needs some serious improvement. The question is how many people have become seriously injured or killed as a result of using typical firearms training for self defense purposes while out on the street? No one knows. Probably more than you care to know or want to admit. Does typical handgun training save lives? I’m sure it does but I doubt the numbers are as high as what you think. Let’s examine something that Masaad Ayoob said in his book called Stress Fire. I am going to paraphrase it but you SHOULD get the idea. He, said that the martial arts has been overlooked as a valuable resource for mobility and stability simply because we because we didn’t have a gun in our hands. Techniques that have allowed warriors to maintain their composure under stress have also been overlooked. Since some of the important things in the martial arts that are related to shooting have been overlooked, is it possible that maybe the entire approach to using a handgun has been wrong or mostly wrong? Surely not. I mean, what do the hand-to-hand experts know about fighting at close distances and know about how to keep the gun safe? I mean, if we teach gun disarms and gun retention, don’t you think that we know how to use the handgun effectively in a fight without going to the “gun experts” who base their training solely on the gun? This is something that has bothered me for years. But, for some reason the “gun experts” know more about fights and know more about how to keep you alive at 0-10 feet better than the unarmed combatives experts… right? Please explain to me why there are “gun experts” and “unarmed experts” when they should be one in the same. My unarmed combatives training is what qualifies me to teach handguns, knife, stick, etc. Unlike most people we teach an integrated system of unarmed combatives with the use of a handgun based upon unarmed tactics. So, with what we teach you are only learning ONE system with or without a gun. Most handgun training revolves around the use of the weapon and not the fight and what really happens. Again, most defensive handgun training is based upon unrealistic perceptions of how real life encounters actually take place. Case and point! As far as my training with Tactical Response, it was just that. It may or may not mean something to some people, but it has NOTHING to do what we teach. Let me ask you this. What good does it for me to go and train with all of the “big name” gun people and I come back and teach what I think needs to be taught from my 24+ years of unarmed training? What does all of that “firearms training” really mean if I don’t agree with it and teach it? Who do I go to in order to trained to teach what I know a fight to be like from an unarmed perspective? I’d say NO ONE. People place far too much emphasis on all of this “firearms training” credential stuff. It’s just like if I went to several different martial arts schools that teach things that I don’t agree with and come back and teach what I feel needs to be taught because what they teach isn’t realistic or practical for most civilian encounters. Some things in martial arts and firearms training will get you injured or killed faster than others. Knowing the difference is what matters. Maybe people should be looking at the “credentials” the other way around. Maybe they need to look at who they have trained with in unarmed combatives and does it make sense, and most importantly is it effective? Quite honestly most martial arts aren’t effective for combat purposes. 80% of what I learned… oh wait; let me check the math on that…nope… I’m good… doesn’t apply to real world fights. It was only through my own personal training that I realized that most of what I learned isn’t realistic or practical for most fights since they are over in a matter of seconds. So, who taught me what would work and wouldn’t work? Well, through countless hours of training realistically, I taught myself which is what really happens in the martial arts world. I’ve figured more stuff out on my own than any instructor was able to teach me. I’m not bashing my instructors’, but that’s just the way it is. And, it was through my personal training time with friends that we learned just how ineffective most handgun training really is. I have used tons of tactics I learned in the military and from LEO training that work.
Do you know more about them than us? And by us I mean current/former military and LEO's. Have you ever been in the miltary or an LEO? I have not been in LE or the Military but have many friends who are, and have been. The question is do you know more than me or any of us really? I know plenty of people in LE and Military who are doers and are not tacticians. Do I know tactics better than those who are in LE or Military? For civilian confrontations at close distances… I’d say probably so. I’m a tactician by nature, just like some people are auto mechanics. So, I’m the exception to the rule. After all, somebody has to make up the tactics… right? Over the past 25 years or even more really, I’ve been around plenty of LE and Military personnel and have seen a lot of the things they have been taught. I don’t believe that most things either of them (LE or Military) has learned apply to most civilian encounters. Anything can work under the right conditions. And, it can work simply because it was just plain luck. You can do the right thing and die and do the wrong thing and live. There is no tactic that is universal and will work in every situation or most situations. To address the second part of that quote, I believe that there are very few experts in the world in the firearms industry and martial arts. I am a student and teacher. I am always learning. I haven’t mastered anything and probably never will. That’s being honest. You might call me an expert, I just consider myself a guy who knows a lot of stuff who likes to share it with others and make a living at it. If that’s an expert, then you say so, not I. I’m sure SouthNarc teaches some good stuff. He seems to be teaching better things than most. Do I agree with all that he teaches? No, just like I don’t agree with what other martial arts teach. Btw, we’ve been trying to tell people to shoot from retention for over 20 years but the “gun gurus” were not doing it, so people who had trained with some of the big names blew us off because we couldn’t have possibly been right. Now that some “gun guru’s” are figuring things out, that is, that things don’t happen the way they’ve been teaching, they are going to the “unarmed experts” to learn how to realistically implement the gun into the fight. I repeat some, but not many instructors. I’m sure that you will see an increase in “integrated” combatives in the next 3-10 years as we’ve been doing for over 20 years. and noticed you never mentioned anything about moving, are you just going to stand there shooting from retention, or try to move away from the threat?
Of course you need to move and you need to do it fast, VERY fast. I thought that would be very obvious, sorry for not mentioning it. I never said I was standing still and shooting either… Speed of movement takes priority over everything else except for mindset. Most of the time if you are moving away from the threat or threats you should be doing so at a running speed. If you move slow enough to use your front sight when someone is shooting at you are trying to stab you, well, you are probably going to take rounds or a lot of wounds from the blade. Neither of which is a good game plan. Most firearms instructors teach creating distance which isn’t realistic either in many situations. And when they do teach moving in, which is rarely, the gun is still extended out towards the threat which is very dangerous. If you can’t move at a running speed and hit your target (which is probably moving) WITH EVERY ROUND, then I would say that you shouldn’t shoot if you believe in creating distance and using your sights is your best option. If your handgun is unlikely to save your life (by immediately dropping the threat) in most situations then the question becomes should you shoot? And, with the low hit ratios and low immediate incapacitation ratios, there is on average at least an 80% or greater chance that the threat is going to remain in the fight. I think that most of you have missed the key word PROBABLY shouldn’t see your sights when at such close distances. Hey, it’s your life. If you want to try using your front sights, then do it. But don’t say things as if it is the only way to do things. I never said that you would never see your front sight. In MOST confrontations which take place from 0-6 feet it is very dangerous to do. But to say that front sights are useless and shots beyond 10 yards require luck invites ridicule. Adding in some Jethro Bodine math statistics doesn't help.
If you are going to quote me with Jethro Bodine quotes, then do it correctly. I mean if we are pointing out “flaws” with what I said, I didn’t say 10 yards, I said 10 feet and beyond. 80% of your training should be done from 0-6 feet. 10% of your training should be done from 6-10 feet. 10% of your training should be done from 10 feet on out. This is where most firearms instructors spend the majority of their time teaching people to defend themselves with a handgun. And if they teach it any closer than 10 feet, they are normally teaching something that isn’t safe or effective. So really, most handgun instructors are teaching what is least likely to happen and not most likely to happen. So, 90% of your training time should be done from 0-10 feet. I never said that you should only train for 0-6 feet. For those of you who like to quote me, where did I ever say that? Most typical firearms training is only good for 10% of the situations at best. (From 10 feet on out) And, with the low hit ratios and low death rates, if you are more than 10 feet away should you shoot? I can’t answer that for you, but I’d say statistically, no. Again, most handgun training doesn’t teach you how to stay alive in the fight long enough to possibly have the opportunity to draw your gun. And, they don’t teach you what to do if the threat(s) are still a threat. The firearms guru’s will tell you that you need to go to the empty hand experts for that. Okay, so having said that, why wouldn’t you go to the empty hand experts to learn how to defend yourself with a handgun? So what range do you start to use your sights, or teach your students too?
As far as what distance do we teach people to use their sights? We don’t teach them to use their sights in most confrontations because it will place them in danger. Most shooting (if they will be shooting) will be done 0-6 feet if not at point blank range so it should probably be done from retention. If you start out 7-10 feet away from a knife wielding attacker and you start to move back, are they going to just stand there? Or, are they going to pursue you? Their reaction time is only about ½ second. So, if you do move backwards or laterally, how much distance are you going to create before they can react and be on top of you which brings the confrontation back to 0-6 feet and unsighted shooting. We tell people that if you are 10 feet or more away, should you really be shooting with the low hit ratios and liability for each round. Only YOU can make that call. Unless you can outrun a speeding bullet, you are probably going to be better off moving in on the threat if you are 0-6 feet away. That is, if they have a gun pointed at you. You can’t outdraw a drawn gun. If I can hit a 40mph soccer ball sized target at 50 yards regularly with this technique, I CANNOT see how I could miss a man-sized target at the same range at a much slower speed.
Was the jack rabbit trying to kill you with a knife or shooting at you? Who is to say that you are not the exception to the rule? But, with a 20% hit ratio, more people are missing than hitting. And I only refer to MOST situations and most people. Not the exceptions or lucky ones. Again, at best you can expect a 20% immediate incapacitation rate. I’d say that using your front sight in the fight is an exception and not the norm. If you disagree then you are not facing the reality of how confrontations take place. When you are getting stabbed you are not going to think front sight, front sight, front sight like your instructor said. You will be thinking what the…. If you are still thinking front sight, front sight, front sight and both hands are on the gun, it will probably be one of your last memories other than… “Man, maybe I should have listened to that guy on the forum that everyone is bashing.” And then lights out for you as you lose blood and flop to the ground from multiple stab wounds. Now here’s a good one… I went back and reread your posts/website, and have to say there is a lot of mixed in with those interesting points. You have to remember that we are responsibly for every round that leaves our firearms, thus if you can get a sight picture then it would be irresponsibly to "point shoot".
Okay, so, obviously you’ve missed the whole 20% average hit ratio thing. And I have stated that sighted shooting hasn’t PROVEN to increase accuracy; therefore shooting your gun with “sighted shooting” is being irresponsible is it not? So, is “point shooting” any more or less accurate? You don’t know as I don’t know, and of course, it depends upon the situation. And of course, it’s not like you are going to just stand there and shoot and the adversary isn’t going to stand there and let you shoot them. I am laughing as I write this…. and videos where you don't look at the camera while speaking to the audience
Not looking at the camera? Really… are you serious? I don’t know what video you are watching and who gives a crap if I am looking at the audience. It’s not like I can see you. When in class I don’t always look at the students because I am doing something that doesn’t allow me to. And, if you haven’t noticed, with a lot of things on TV they are not really looking at the camera either. Can’t you be an adult and pick on something worth picking on? I mean, is the information any less valid because I didn’t “look” at the camera? WOW! Some people… You look even smaller by getting into pissing matches with people who disagree with your original post.
See last statement about the videos… I’m sorry, I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum. What you are saying is that only people who don’t post the original post are allowed to disagree with what was said? If I don’t agree with what any of you said I’m supposed to do what exactly… Again, SERIOUSLY? Can you give any background for these statements? Cite some sources? "No one has ever proved 2 handed shooting improves accuracy"??????
Nope, but just as you can’t show they support two handed and/or sighted shooting… Which is my point. You are right. My original snarky remark about your videos was not a good evaluation of your concepts and teaching. Let's see if I can do better.
FYI… Failed miserably! Oh, and one more for the road just because I’m having so much fun… Has NOT seeing the sights been proven to allow you to prevail?
How many people teach “point shooting” or retention shooting? Not many. So, how many people do you think have tried to do so in a confrontation? The “gun experts” say that you should see your sights in order to hit your target (which still isn’t proven to increase accuracy), so what do you think people are attempting to do? If the masses of people are taught to see sights as opposed to the minority that haven’t, what do you think the numbers will represent? I can’t say there are numbers that support point shooting. Maybe people did it by accident when the attacker was stabbing them and they didn’t think to “call it point shooting”. We can sit here and argue all day long and it isn’t going to resolve anything. So you are going to defend the 20% hit ratio and even lower death ratio to “sighted shooting”? Well then, it really isn’t yielding good results now is it? Here’s the challenge. Get a training gun and a rubber knife. Your threat is going to be 0-6 feet away from you and your gun is going to be concealed how you normally carry it. Your hands are going to be in a defensive position and not on the gun. The guy with the knife is going to be threatening you and whenever he decides to he is going to attack you for 30 seconds without stopping regardless of what you do to them. Now, the attacker has to be committed to attacking you in a serious manner. Let me know the outcome of the drill. Next drill, everything is the same except for you are going to move first and attempt to draw your gun. The attacker is going to respond to your movement and proceed to attack you for 30 seconds nonstop. Oh, one more thing, have someone video tape both exercises so you can see what happened. I seriously doubt that you will see your front sight in either of the situations. If you do, did your arms get cut? As always… Train hard, train often, and most of all, train realistically!!! Brian K. LaMaster |
|
I did not read your long post above because it became kind of rambling and I'm not sure I really saw the point in most of it.
I'm not a statistics guy so I don't throw out made up statistics since I know little to nothing about percentages and how to calculate them. I would recommend that you avoid the same thing. Anyway, to address something mentioned somewhere above, as a citizen you should be alert and paying attention. In real life, people don't casually walk up to you and stab you with a knife. People who intend to harm you give out signs. If you are living in condition yellow (in public...you can't stay in condition yellow 100% of the time) you should be picking up on the signs of bad guys wanting to do bad things and take appropriate action as the situation dictates. You do need to train close in retention shooting and MOST big name instructors will teach retention/contact distance type shooting. However, you still need to train to use the front sight. With no training, you will probably not see your front sight in a real gunfight. With training, you will see your front sight in a real gunfight. So, train to see your front sight. |
|
Okay, so, obviously you’ve missed the whole 20% average hit ratio thing. And I have stated that sighted shooting hasn’t PROVEN to increase accuracy; therefore shooting your gun with “sighted shooting” is being irresponsible is it not? So, is “point shooting” any more or less accurate? You don’t know as I don’t know, and of course, it depends upon the situation. And of course, it’s not like you are going to just stand there and shoot and the adversary isn’t going to stand there and let you shoot them.
I am laughing as I write this…. I can only speak for myself, but I can honestly tell you that I am more accurate using my sights vs point shooting, I would like to hear you elaborate on why using your sights hasn't been proven to increase accuracy. |
|
A few problems:
1. Hit ratios in gunfights –– the stats from LE are of somewhat limited use because most police officers are not skilled shooters and are not mentally prepared for being in a gunfight. Often when you see dashcam video of police officers in a gunfight they are in a state of absolute terror and in that state they simply point the weapon in the general direction of the threat and pull the trigger as fast as possible. This is one of the reasons why the shots landed are so low. This should be obvious enough to the inquisitive to prompt them to look at how variations in the training and preparation used by different departments has impacted their ability to put bullets into bad guys. I personally know of multiple police officers who were in gunfights where they hit the threat with the majority of their shots, sometimes despite sustaining multiple life-threatening hits themselves in the opening of the fight. I know of other officers who have delivered pinpoint accuracy under gunfight conditions and have ended threats in relatively short order with superb accuracy, especially head shots at relatively close range. It's worth noting that these officers generally had some things in common: - They did not stick to just the department mandated firearms training, instead seeking out training from competent instructors and regularly practicing their skills while holding themselves to high standards - They consciously developed a warrior ethos dedicated to winning. They fully expected some hammer-head to try and kill them, they fully expected it to be the next guy they met, and they were fully prepared to piss on his leaking corpse. Those old stats would probably look somewhat different if you re-examined the issue using current data from departments that have very progressive and realistic firearms training courses that are producing far superior results in gunfights. Further, if you were to examine the results from the shootings involving the (for lack of a better term) "meat-eaters" on departments versus the herbivores of the department, I think you'd probably notice a staggering difference in the level of performance they exhibit in gunfights. ...so in general. I think you're probably drawing more conclusions and lessons from the quoted FBI data than the data actually warrants. There are some gaping holes in it that make it somewhat dangerous to use as the foundation for absolute statements of truth when it's fairly easy to point out that the rule doesn't seem to apply to the more aggressive individuals with superior training and a commitment to winning. Some of the individuals I know of who have the most combat experience and the most experience preparing others for combat at the highest levels are self-described accuracy "nazis" who teach use of the sights including "flash" sighting when appropriate. 2. I don't really know of anyone who advocates a traditional stance when there's a threat in extremely close proximity that can take your gun away...so I'm puzzled as to who, exactly, your front sight focus critique would be aimed at since everybody I've ever trained with figured out that extreme close quarters is a different world long, long ago. 3. "that focusing on your front sight during a confrontation increases accuracy. Just as no one has proven that two handed shooting in a life or death situation will increase accuracy." –– again, I'd have to refer you to the experience of a number of people who have turned bad guys with bad intent into worm food who have actually used their front sight to deliver pinpoint accuracy and who have used two hands to do it. This seems to be yet another "truth" predicated upon a misunderstanding of information taken out of reasonable context. 4. 10 feet –– 10 feet is a little over 3 yards. If the threat is advancing on me from 3 yards when I detect him, it's unlikely that I'll be able to use a two hand hold to employ my firearm. If, however, my gun is already out by the time he hits that 3 yard mark I stand a pretty darn good chance of being able to put multiple hits into the bad guy's head if I simply do what I've spent a lot of time and money training myself to do...and that's got a good chance of stopping him cold. Head shots at close range under gunfight circumstances are possible and are a good idea to train for. A while back someone posted a radio interview Massad Ayoob did with a long-time police Lt. serving in Chicago. The officer had been in 14 shootings during his career...and had won all 14 of them. He was very successful because he trained to do close range head shots on the range. Then when it came time for the real thing on the street...well...he performed close range head shots and ended the threat. He is but one example of others I could give of individuals who have done the same. Are these guys supermen who buck all the trends? ...or is it more likely that they simply held themselves to a higher than average standard, trained themselves to a higher than average level, and then when it counted delivered a better than average level of performance? |
|
Quoted:
I want to address the teaching of focusing on the front sight. As far as basic marksmanship is concerned I have absolutely no problem with this teaching as your eye can only focus on one thing at a time and it is the middle object of the three. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, I’m referring to the rear sight, front sight, and target. There are a lot of firearms schools that teach to focus on the front sight when shooting. While I can respect this teaching, the reality of it is that it is not a good teaching when it comes to defending yourself while out on the street. This teaching is based upon unrealistic perceptions of how a confrontation actually takes place. Since about 80% of confrontations take place from 0-6 feet, in order to see your front sight you would have to bring the gun up to eye level or shoulder level and bring your head down to it depending upon how you were taught, or prefer to shoot. The problem with this method is that at such close distances you would be extending your arms out towards the threat or threats and that’s not at all a good idea. One reason it isn’t a good idea is because the gun can be taken away from you. Another thing is that if you attempt to do this against a knife wielding attacker they may cut one or both of your hands or arms possibly causing you to lose your gun and very possibly limiting your options for survival from that point on. More than likely you will focus on the threat and not your front sight. If you focus on your front sight and not the threat, you may very well force yourself into tunnel vision (if you aren’t already there) and that’s not a good thing. People kill people with their hands so you need to watch their hands. You need to try and take in as much of your surroundings as possible. And, if you are focusing on the front sight you may miss other things that are critical to your survival or you may not see the innocent person standing behind your threat and try and shoot the threat and miss (which is highly likely to happen) and hit the innocent bystander because you were too focused on the front sight. Is there a time and place for “sighted” shooting? Yes! However, it is the exception to the rule and not the norm. If you are at a distance of 11 or more feet away, sure, sighted shooting may be necessary. However, if you are more than 10 feet away from the threat or threats, what are your chances of hitting them and taking them out of the fight? If you are 10 feet or more away from the adversary should you shoot? No one has ever proven that focusing on your front sight during a confrontation increases accuracy. Just as no one has proven that two handed shooting in a life or death situation will increase accuracy. The average hit ratio is around 20% due to the dynamics of the fight. Theoretically a two handed shooting platform seeing your front sight would increase your accuracy, but even if you are lucky enough, and I emphasize lucky, to hit your target, it is highly unlikely that you will immediately reduce the threat or threats. If you don’t agree with that last statement, maybe you should watch our YouTube videos on caliber and shot placement. Brian, I think most of the "old guard" in LAPD "D" Platoon would seriously disagree with you based on their personal experiences. And cumulatively they have been in more gunfights than any other LE agency in the country. Simply put, if you are within “10 feet” of the attacker you shouldn’t be shooting with your arms extended outward towards the threat. If you are going to use your gun you should be shooting from some type of retention format. I am a big fan of laser sights because you probably won’t see your front sight or sights at all.
For those of you who disagree and think that you will see your front sight and you will extend your arms out towards the threat in order to shoot when you are within 10 feet, I wish you the best because odds are you are fooling yourself as to what is going to really work or even happen in a real life or death situation. One important thing to remember, the gun isn’t your salvation! At, within, or just beyond "Contact Distance" is never about shooting technique, be it sighted or non-sighted fire. It's all about "what to do" until you can bring your firearm into play. This is not a revelation to most of us who frequent this forum. |
|
My question is, What if 80% of the people shot were from instinct shooters, and 10% were shot from people with their eyes closed, and the last 10% were shot from people focusing on their front sight?
Does this People Shot Stat include any good guy/ bad guy ratio? Is the bad guy shooting sideways gangsta style with no training vs. good guy using front sight ratio going to skew this stat any? |
|
Just my .02 cents.
I've seen some guys I worked with throw shots, or even miss the target from 5 feet on out. After the scenario ended, when pressed about why they missed, the one common statement between all of them was "I don't know where my sights were" Unless your muzzle is touching the target, sights come into play. Yes, it's a good idea to practice shooting from your side. No, it's not a good idea to disregard sights. My team had it beat into our skulls for many many weeks to use our sights. 100% round accountability is the only acceptable standard. It doesn't matter how fast you get the pistol up on target and touch off a shot. Your brain is taking into account how your sights look. If you "look over the sights" you brain is still lining them up. When I shoot up close, I see the fuzzy block of my rear sight, and as long as there isn't a big chunk of daylight where the front should be, I know I'm good. Further out is a different story. |
|
I have 2 major issues with what the OP is spouting off about. #1 when watching these horrible videos he said " remember, you are legally responsible for every shot you put down range." So in staying with this, why in the hell would you contrdict yourself by teaching people to shoot with out using their sights???
And # 2 the basic idea that i am getting from your rambling is the it is ok to teach the "Gangster" horizontal one hand gun hold, and that will be more accurate than lining up your sights? OP GTFO you should never teach anyone anything, and if people paid you for this garbage, they should report you to the BBB and demand there money back! G'Day |
|
And another thing......About the videos... Take off your sunglasses if your going to talk to me. If your selling me anything or are trying to convince me of some truth, then your gona have to do it with the glasses off and look me in the eye.
If I have to listen to your profile for that long I start feeling like I want to puke in your ear. |
|
I tend to discredit anyone who uses statistics to tell me what I will do in a gunfight. Experience has shown me that, under stress, I'll do what I've trained to do. Anyone who tries to fit their training around some idea of 'natural reaction' is missing the point of training, IMHO. It's intended to modify that natural response into something more productive-that's why we train.
Larry |
|
Just my .02
Apprently this goes to prove that Those who can't do the job Teach! And Op has forgotten that when in Doubt employ the magizine and run like a little Bitch or Peace is only a Blet Feed weapon away! When you pull the trigger on a Human after hours and hours of training in a real life and death sinario. Your Dam right you will know when you hit the target and if you are looking at your sights. |
|
Quoted:
I tend to discredit anyone who uses statistics to tell me what I will do in a gunfight. Experience has shown me that, under stress, I'll do what I've trained to do. Anyone who tries to fit their training around some idea of 'natural reaction' is missing the point of training, IMHO. It's intended to modify that natural response into something more productive-that's why we train. Larry That was very well stated. 
|
|
ArGodMode
I have 2 major issues with what the OP is spouting off about. #1 when watching these horrible videos he said " remember, you are legally responsible for every shot you put down range." So in staying with this, why in the hell would you contrdict yourself by teaching people to shoot with out using their sights??? And # 2 the basic idea that i am getting from your rambling is the it is ok to teach the "Gangster" horizontal one hand gun hold, and that will be more accurate than lining up your sights? OP GTFO you should never teach anyone anything, and if people paid you for this garbage, they should report you to the BBB and demand there money back! I never contradict myself. It is your limited (inside the box) mindset of what I said. Obviously you don’t know how things really take place. You are going to find yourself CLOSE to the attacker. You should NEVER shoot unless you are 100% sure you are going to hit the target. And, with a 20% average (done with sighted shooting) hit ratio do you think that you should shoot even with “aimed shooting”? Does the gun care how you hold it or shoot it? NO! Get over yourself and get some real training. The old school teachings aren’t realistic or practical. Things don’t happen the way they teach! Believe what you want to believe. Just because you can’t understand the simple concept doesn’t mean it is garbage. It’s just what you don’t WANT to believe. Good luck in defending yourself! You NEED it! CommoGunSlinger
Apprently this goes to prove that Those who can't do the job Teach! And Op has forgotten that when in Doubt employ the magizine and run like a little Bitch or Peace is only a Blet Feed weapon away! When you pull the trigger on a Human after hours and hours of training in a real life and death sinario. Your Dam right you will know when you hit the target and if you are looking at your sights. First of all, the saying may be true for MOST people, but it is funny that most people go to those type of instructors (which is A LOT) for their training. So, if you are going to a “can’t do” trainer, then you won’t be able to do it either…right? I mean, if they can’t do it and they are teaching something they can’t do, what exactly do you expect to get from it? People are going to trainer’s to get the information… right? I’m a doer and I prove it in our courses. Obviously you are still fooling yourself as to what you can do in the real world if you think you can hit your target most of the time or at all. gearhead721
And another thing......About the videos... Take off your sunglasses if your going to talk to me. If your selling me anything or are trying to convince me of some truth, then your gona have to do it with the glasses off and look me in the eye. If I have to listen to your profile for that long I start feeling like I want to puke in your ear. Again… REALLY? Grow up. I teach classes with glasses on and students have them on, it is part of life. The attacks on my videos and information tell me a lot about “your” mindset and training or lack thereof. It is YOU that are doing people on this forum a disservice by saying things that are not true and quite honestly out of line. However, I expect to be attacked because we are teaching things that most other instructors don’t teach because they don’t have the knowledge or courage to say because they don’t want to lose business. I am sure I’ve said this before, but just because some of you aren’t getting this, just because someone, regardless of their credentials, has taught something for a while or whatever, DOES NOT make it combat effective or even practical for MOST civilian encounters. When I speak the truth and it challenges what you THINK you know or have been taught, I expect it to challenge your ego. However, most your attacks are childish and just plain rude. Most of you who have posted on this thread have ego issues and absolutely no clue as to how things really happen. It is very apparent that many of you if not most of you believe that you know how to know how to defend yourselves with a gun. From the things I’ve seen posted here I can only say that you are trapped in The Matrix training mindset and you have very little chance of surviving an actual confrontation. Most gun owners haven’t received formal defensive handgun training, and for those who have, it has probably been from instructors who have a Law Enforcement background or trained by someone who has been trained by someone with a LE background. Unfortunately “LE trainers” or those who have been trained as trainers by LE are teaching things that don’t apply to MOST civilians encounters because they don’t understand the civilian confrontation and all of the elements thereof. One of the key elements that most trainers fail to tell the truth about is the ineffectiveness of the handgun. One reason they fail to understand the ineffectiveness is because they don’t have all of the facts or they don’t train realistically. People, you are forgetting many things here. First of all, I said MOST of the time you shouldn’t be using your sights because of the close distance to threat. If you do use your front sight then you are asking for serious trouble. Approximately 11-14% of LEO’s are killed with their own guns each year. WHY is that? Maybe it is because they did what they were taught and are teaching people like you. Could it possibly be that these officers extended their arms out towards the threat and their gun was taken away? Most firearms trainers teach tactics that apply (maybe) when you are 10 feet on out which is about 10% of confrontational distances. Another thing is that it is very apparent that you haven’t taken the time to watch the caliber and shot placement videos which clearly explain what most of you are not getting and will probably never come to terms with. These two videos alone negate most, if not all of your comments. The handgun is a very poor tool to get the job done. That fact has been PROVEN (with an average hit ratio of 20%) over the past 30 years or so. However, most instructors don’t tell you that because they are trying to tell you how to defend yourself with a handgun and they don’t have their facts straight. The information has been out there for 20 years but very few people CHOOSE to expose the information because it would force them to do something else for a living because what they are teaching doesn’t work the way people think or what people want to hear. The handgun has become the diet pill for self defense. People want to feel good about carrying a handgun and receive minimal training (if they get any training) and/or feel good training. Just because YOU choose to drink the kool aid and live in The Matrix defensive handgun training world doesn’t mean the real world and how things REALLY happen don’t exist. Until you free your mind from The Matrix you will continue to have unrealistic perceptions of how things really happen and how true effective training such as what we offer is much different from what most others are teaching. The majority of trainers paint the pretty picture syndrome which is that you will survive long enough in the fight to have the opportunity to draw your gun, hit the threat or threats and immediately reduce the threats. Of course, they don’t teach you how to survive until you get to the point of drawing your gun. So, HOW do you expect to survive long enough to POSSIBLY have the opportunity to draw your gun, which by the way, is unlikely to drop threat immediately. As the FBI’s Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness Report states, the likelihood of you immediately incapacitating the threat is highly unlikely. Yet defensive handgun instructors are still teaching that it is an effective tool to defend yourself with. Defensive handgun training hasn’t changed very much over the past 30 years or more. Neither has the effectiveness of the handgun. So, what exactly are training for when taking most defensive handgun training courses? I train realistically and that is why I do what I do and state the things that I do. Maybe you should consider spending more time training realistically and not so much time on the internet posting comments like you have and maybe you would have already come to some of the conclusions we have. Although, unless you understand the fight from an unarmed perspective then you may never come to terms with things and how they happen. It is common for people to bash what they don’t understand or goes against what they WANT to believe. Most of the time we find that people don’t like hearing the truth about the time and money that they have invested in something is not what they though it was. However, it does not justify some of your rude and ridiculous statements. Although most of you don’t appreciate what I say or create videos on, doesn’t mean that others don’t. It is because of those who do appreciate the things that I do that keeps them coming. Some people are looking for things that are likely to save their life and realize that what is commonly taught is not realistic or practical. Not forgetting that it is my duty to tell the truth and as you know and we experiencing in this thread, the truth hurts! If you just let go of your ego then maybe you can begin to learn something worthwhile. Otherwise…good luck! I am not going to spend time arguing with people who don’t train or are keyboard commandos and spend more time on the internet than training. It is obvious who those people are. I tend to discredit, and so should you, those who are unwilling to train realistically and put their skills to the test as previously challenged to do, and those who think that the gun is going to take the threat immediately out of the fight. Are you going to listen to someone who is attempting to share things that are more likely to save your life than others are teaching, or are you going to listen to those who may have not had ANY training and want to tell you what they THINK they know as they sit behind their monitor and keyboard in the safety of their own home. Are you really going to buy into the nonsense they say or do you care enough about your own life enough to think and train realistically? Do yourself a favor and don’t be a kool aid drinker and get out and train! You will be doing more than most of the people here who think they know what they are doing. If more people including instructors trained realistically, then more people would probably be teaching things like we are. But since most people don’t and never will train realistically and they don’t possess unarmed self defense skills, it is doubtful people will see the light, including instructors. So, if you are new to this forum or maybe you have been a member for a while, think about what I just said. If you are a person who has hundreds or thousands of posts, maybe it is time to do a self check and get out and do something worthwhile. I tend to discredit anyone who uses statistics to tell me what I will do in a gunfight. Experience has shown me that, under stress, I'll do what I've trained to do. Anyone who tries to fit their training around some idea of 'natural reaction' is missing the point of training, IMHO. It's intended to modify that natural response into something more productive-that's why we train. You won’t always do what you’ve trained to do. People say that, but, if you doubt your training, and most people should and I’ve presented enough about why they should, then you may not attempt to do anything. And you can only expect to perform at 50% at best. So statistics have no real meaning do they? I mean, they can’t possibly mean that you are actually only likely to hit your target 20% if the time. Yet I bet you train to shoot people all with the illusion that you will be able to get your gun out. Apparently you are placing your life on training that is dangerous and is not yielding good results. Not forgetting that unless you destroy the brain or upper spinal cord there is no reason for immediate incapacitation. So my friend, if your training is dangerous and not based upon FACTS of how things will really happen, then you will train in a bad manner. Having said that, what good is the training? Train hard, train often, and most of all, train realistically. (read the last part again…) Brian K. LaMaster Innovative Tactical Concepts |
|
Quoted:
The majority of trainers paint the pretty picture syndrome which is that you will survive long enough in the fight to have the opportunity to draw your gun, hit the threat or threats and immediately reduce the threats. Of course, they don’t teach you how to survive until you get to the point of drawing your gun. So, HOW do you expect to survive long enough to POSSIBLY have the opportunity to draw your gun, which by the way, is unlikely to drop threat immediately. Gentlemen, Let's please tone this down a decibel or two for the sake of the topic (which I happen to think is very important). Brian, In terms of contact distance threats, I would agree with you that conventional, sighted fire is not the "best, first option". But the manner in which you framed the topic, even though you apparently put allot of thought into it given the original post was rather lengthy, was obviously misconstrued by some. Going to the handgun as a first response to a close contact assault is not recommended. Unsighted fire from retention "may" be an option depending on how the initial contact unfolds although preoccupying one of my hands in an attempt to get to my handgun, even under favorable circumstances (I am prevailing in the "hands on" struggle), may still not be the wisest course of action. I'd like to offer another perspective. The "other option" is that through the use of "hands on" skills, we will be able to "control the threat physically" (fight to his "green zone"), and then be in a position of advantage whereby we will have enough time to employ sighted fire. ETA: Let's all please restrain the urge to counter-attack. |
|
Quoted:
The "other option" is that through the use of "hands on" skills, we will be able to "control the threat physically" (fight to his "green zone"), and then be in a position of advantage whereby we will have enough time to employ sighted fire. ETA: Let's all please restrain the urge to counter-attack. Tony - This is essentially what Southnarc's ECQC curriculum suggests, contingent on the situation, of course (I have not attended the classes, just what I've gotten from his posts). Anyone interested in this area should go register at Total Protection Interactive; it's a great board with a lot of smart and experienced posters. Jay |
|
Quoted:
Tony - This is essentially what Southnarc's ECQC curriculum suggests, contingent on the situation, of course (I have not attended the classes, just what I've gotten from his posts). Anyone interested in this area should go register at Total Protection Interactive; it's a great board with a lot of smart and experienced posters. Jay Right. Southnarc. So does Steve Tarani, whom we have been hosting since 2003. |
|
Quoted:
ArGodMode
I have 2 major issues with what the OP is spouting off about. #1 when watching these horrible videos he said " remember, you are legally responsible for every shot you put down range." So in staying with this, why in the hell would you contrdict yourself by teaching people to shoot with out using their sights??? And # 2 the basic idea that i am getting from your rambling is the it is ok to teach the "Gangster" horizontal one hand gun hold, and that will be more accurate than lining up your sights? OP GTFO you should never teach anyone anything, and if people paid you for this garbage, they should report you to the BBB and demand there money back! I never contradict myself. It is your limited (inside the box) mindset of what I said. Obviously you don’t know how things really take place. You are going to find yourself CLOSE to the attacker. You should NEVER shoot unless you are 100% sure you are going to hit the target. And, with a 20% average (done with sighted shooting) hit ratio do you think that you should shoot even with “aimed shooting”? (cut) Brian K. LaMaster Innovative Tactical Concepts Reference the part in red...once I read that, I pretty much quit reading the rest. Everyone will contradict themselves every once in awhile. Your claiming that shows a lot about your character. Good luck with that. |
|
I have a very clear mental image of my front and rear sights in my engagement. In fact, I even recall watching my hammer come back as I prepped the trigger. I can also see her outline, as well as the 12" kitchen knife she was holding. She was very lucky my partner had a Taser, because I had already made the decision to shoot and was pressing the shot out when he tased her.
I also very distinctly remember the massive adrenaline dump afterwards where I could not hold still and could not even unlock my car door. A lot of people always ask if "combat experience" is necessary to be a good instructor. I was always on the fence - but I'd have to say in a setting such as this "whether or not to use the front sight in a lethal force encounter" .... it probably is needed. Train like you will fight and you will fight like you train. Doc ETA- Distance to threat was approximately 7-10 feet. |
|
Quoted:
I have a very clear mental image of my front and rear sights in my engagement. In fact, I even recall watching my hammer come back as I prepped the trigger. I can also see her outline, as well as the 12" kitchen knife she was holding. She was very lucky my partner had a Taser, because I had already made the decision to shoot and was pressing the shot out when he tased her. I also very distinctly remember the massive adrenaline dump afterwards where I could not hold still and could not even unlock my car door. A lot of people always ask if "combat experience" is necessary to be a good instructor. I was always on the fence - but I'd have to say in a setting such as this "whether or not to use the front sight in a lethal force encounter" .... it probably is needed. Train like you will fight and you will fight like you train. Doc ETA- Distance to threat was approximately 7-10 feet. Doc, Thanks for sharing that....I'm betting you still play that through your head on a frequent basis. I prefer that my training come from the proverbial 'been there and done that' instructor, versus someone who has been training and 'learning' for umpteen years. |
|
So I'm assuming you're talking about situations like this one?
Disclaimer: Yeah, it's a movie, so might not be "real", but I'm just trying to get an understanding of what confrontations are being talked about. Briefcase scene from Collateral |
|
I never contradict myself. It is your limited (inside the box) mindset of what I said. Obviously you don’t know how things really take place.
I rarely frequent this forum - in fact, I got here from Active Topics - but I need to mention something here. I am going to give you some very valuable business advice, and while you might not enjoy hearing it, it is important information to consider. Brian, I have never taken a training course in person besides hunter safety and Boy Scout rifle instruction. I have never been in combat. I've never even been in a serious fistfight. However, I have been saving up for a spate of training courses to take in rapid succession, and I am constantly evaluating instructors and schools that I might consider. If I spend money on an instructor that is going to teach me how to keep myself alive in dire circumstances, I'm making an explicit admission that I don't already know how, and need to learn those skills. I expect that instructor to have the same capacity to admit imperfection and pursue greater knowledge - especially if I'm trusting him that deeply. With your single remark above, I am no longer willing to consider you as an instructor. I will explain why. What your remark shows is that your ego wins out over your capability to critically self-analyze your perspective, actions, and beliefs, and to admit even the possibility of imperfection or failure (such as someone else being correct) when doing so is important. If you cannot even accept the possibility that you might be in error or that somebody else might be correct / more correct, you are very likely incapable of critically evaluating your own ideas and perspectives and critically analyzing your failures. If you cannot do that - and you've just tossed out some very strong evidence which indicates so - then it raises serious questions about your capability to refine, strengthen, revise, and fullproof the training that you are marketing. Nobody is perfect. Those of us who are quick to admit it when we fail are faster to begin correcting and learning from our mistakes, or learning from the mistakes or wisdom of others. Those who refuse to accept even the possibility of their own flaws will forever stay hung up on the errors they are committing at that moment. They will never advance. |
|
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent. What you do in training, you will do in real life, only worse. If you train to pull your empties out of your revolver and stick them in your pocket... probably, you will do that in a confrontation and waste precious time because your brain defaults to the repetitious patterns it is already familiar with. If you train to fire without looking at your sights, you won't use them in a confrontation... but that, to me, seems a little like driving without using a steering wheel.
It doesn't matter if you practice shooting static targets on a range, moving targets, or whatever... your practiced techniques, you will carry with you. Why would you not want to give yourself every advantage in a defensive situation? Only hits count, you are responsible for every round that leaves the muzzle, etc... name your cliche. I would rather take the time to fire good shots that have the desired effect, than waste a magazine of ammunition spraying and praying. (and shooting holes in things that I will have to pay for later, rather than the nice man trying to mug me, or whatever.) I have trained at several schools, under some of the best instructors in the country, if not the world... not a single one of them EVER impressed upon me that I shouldn't use my sights if given the opportunity. Of course, anyone who carries a pistol for defensive purposes should know how to shoot from retention or make contact shots, yes, but aimed fire is always more effective and more responsible. IMO |
|
Some constructive criticism...first off, my info. 16 year LEO, all of it on the road. For 15 of those years, I've been a firearms, use of force, defensive tactics, reality based training (force on force), and field training instructor. 12 years (and counting) active SWAT experience including the last 3 years at the command level. For 9 of those SWAT years, I was the lead firearms instructor. I genuinely feel qualified to offer my opinion.
I sat through all 19ish minutes of the three videos you linked. While I won't ask for my time back, I will say that it was painful. I have a better attention span than most when it comes to digesting instruction. If your actual instruction is that dry, statistic oriented, and generally arrogant, your students aren't going to absorb whatever it is you are trying to impart. Adults don't learn very well through a lecture format. Tell them in a clear and concise manner what it is you are going to teach them, show them what you mean, and then have them perform it in stages. After they are showing some success, then you can go back to some discussion. If you lecture, they will shut down. You seem to be targeting non-LEO and non-military CCWers as your preferred demographic, yet you use the FBI report on officer involved shootings to make your points. While the FBI report is a nice tool, it is hardly indicative of what will happen in a gunfight. In your video speeches, you don't seem to make any reference to the involved officers' level of training, the adversary's level of training, environmental factors, or any of the other (numerous) factors that have an impact on the final outcome. Speaking authoritatively that because 20% of rounds in fight will hit and that 20% of those people hit will die is misleading. And on top of all that it would seem to be an apples and oranges thing because you're using LE stats for a non-LE audience. Each gunfight, regardless of the participants occupations must be evaluated on it's own merits. There are simply too many variables to consider to draw any valid conclusions when examined as a whole. I love training of any variety. I'm a 'tools in the toolbox' kind of guy. If I go to a class and don't like anything that was taught, I consider it money well spent. If I take just one little thing away from it that I can add to the toolbox, that's a bonus. If I learn something that fundamentally changes everything I've ever learned or taught, I'd consider that to be like winning the lottery. I've never won the lottery, The fact is, gunfighting won't ever really fundamentally change. He who gets the quality hits first, wins. None of this of course addresses the issue of situational awareness and reading your adversary. But that's a discussion for another day. I'll tell you what I learned from watching those three videos. Regardless of what I do, I can't win a gunfight. Is that the message you intended to send? I hope not, but that is the message I received and I know better. Thousands of dead bad guys would readily attest to it's falsehood if they were able... |
|
I have absolutely no constructive criticism or criticism for that matter... I will agree with a statement from your first video though.
After 1 annulment, 1 divorce, and 2 kids I have to admit that "without penetration... Nothing else matters...." and no where has this rung truer than in my life! From Prom Night to my last fight with the wife about the babysitter.... "Without Penetration...Nothing Else matters..." Well said Sir, Well Said... 
|
|
Quoted:
Some constructive criticism...first off, my info. 16 year LEO, all of it on the road. For 15 of those years, I've been a firearms, use of force, defensive tactics, reality based training (force on force), and field training instructor. 12 years (and counting) active SWAT experience including the last 3 years at the command level. For 9 of those SWAT years, I was the lead firearms instructor. I genuinely feel qualified to offer my opinion. I sat through all 19ish minutes of the three videos you linked. While I won't ask for my time back, I will say that it was painful. I have a better attention span than most when it comes to digesting instruction. If your actual instruction is that dry, statistic oriented, and generally arrogant, your students aren't going to absorb whatever it is you are trying to impart. Adults don't learn very well through a lecture format. Tell them in a clear and concise manner what it is you are going to teach them, show them what you mean, and then have them perform it in stages. After they are showing some success, then you can go back to some discussion. If you lecture, they will shut down. You seem to be targeting non-LEO and non-military CCWers as your preferred demographic, yet you use the FBI report on officer involved shootings to make your points. While the FBI report is a nice tool, it is hardly indicative of what will happen in a gunfight. In your video speeches, you don't seem to make any reference to the involved officers' level of training, the adversary's level of training, environmental factors, or any of the other (numerous) factors that have an impact on the final outcome. Speaking authoritatively that because 20% of rounds in fight will hit and that 20% of those people hit will die is misleading. And on top of all that it would seem to be an apples and oranges thing because you're using LE stats for a non-LE audience. Each gunfight, regardless of the participants occupations must be evaluated on it's own merits. There are simply too many variables to consider to draw any valid conclusions when examined as a whole. I love training of any variety. I'm a 'tools in the toolbox' kind of guy. If I go to a class and don't like anything that was taught, I consider it money well spent. If I take just one little thing away from it that I can add to the toolbox, that's a bonus. If I learn something that fundamentally changes everything I've ever learned or taught, I'd consider that to be like winning the lottery. I've never won the lottery, The fact is, gunfighting won't ever really fundamentally change. He who gets the quality hits first, wins. None of this of course addresses the issue of situational awareness and reading your adversary. But that's a discussion for another day. I'll tell you what I learned from watching those three videos. Regardless of what I do, I can't win a gunfight. Is that the message you intended to send? I hope not, but that is the message I received and I know better. Thousands of dead bad guys would readily attest to it's falsehood if they were able... Well said. |
|
Quoted:
I never contradict myself. It is your limited (inside the box) mindset of what I said. Obviously you don’t know how things really take place.
I rarely frequent this forum - in fact, I got here from Active Topics - but I need to mention something here. I am going to give you some very valuable business advice, and while you might not enjoy hearing it, it is important information to consider. Brian, I have never taken a training course in person besides hunter safety and Boy Scout rifle instruction. I have never been in combat. I've never even been in a serious fistfight. However, I have been saving up for a spate of training courses to take in rapid succession, and I am constantly evaluating instructors and schools that I might consider. If I spend money on an instructor that is going to teach me how to keep myself alive in dire circumstances, I'm making an explicit admission that I don't already know how, and need to learn those skills. I expect that instructor to have the same capacity to admit imperfection and pursue greater knowledge - especially if I'm trusting him that deeply. With your single remark above, I am no longer willing to consider you as an instructor. I will explain why. What your remark shows is that your ego wins out over your capability to critically self-analyze your perspective, actions, and beliefs, and to admit even the possibility of imperfection or failure (such as someone else being correct) when doing so is important. If you cannot even accept the possibility that you might be in error or that somebody else might be correct / more correct, you are very likely incapable of critically evaluating your own ideas and perspectives and critically analyzing your failures. If you cannot do that - and you've just tossed out some very strong evidence which indicates so - then it raises serious questions about your capability to refine, strengthen, revise, and fullproof the training that you are marketing. Nobody is perfect. Those of us who are quick to admit it when we fail are faster to begin correcting and learning from our mistakes, or learning from the mistakes or wisdom of others. Those who refuse to accept even the possibility of their own flaws will forever stay hung up on the errors they are committing at that moment. They will never advance. Well said. |
|
Quoted:
First of all, the saying may be true for MOST people, but it is funny that most people go to those type of instructors (which is A LOT) for their training. So, if you are going to a “can’t do” trainer, then you won’t be able to do it either…right? I mean, if they can’t do it and they are teaching something they can’t do, what exactly do you expect to get from it? People are going to trainer’s to get the information… right? I’m a doer and I prove it in our courses. Dude....take a long hard look around the training industry and look at the names and backgrounds of people in it. If you're hanging your shingle out there as an instructor you're in a business with people like Paul Howe, Larry Vickers, Kyle Defoor, Kyle Lamb, Brian Searcy, J.D. Potynsky, Pat MacNamara, Jason Falla, Scotty Reitz, etc. You ought to be exceptionally careful about labeling yourself a "doer" in that kind of company lest you make yourself look like a jackass. Obviously you are still fooling yourself as to what you can do in the real world if you think you can hit your target most of the time or at all. That would necessarily bring up the question of who, exactly, has the strongest grip on what the "real world" looks like. I can go on and on for hours listing people with abundant real life gunfight experience who managed to hit their intended target consistently because they trained to do exactly that. Some of them even came up with a system that proved very effective at getting other people trained to hit their intended target under extreme stress. Some of them, in fact, are on that little list I typed out above. People, you are forgetting many things here. First of all, I said MOST of the time you shouldn’t be using your sights because of the close distance to threat. If you do use your front sight then you are asking for serious trouble. Approximately 11-14% of LEO’s are killed with their own guns each year. WHY is that? Maybe it is because they did what they were taught and are teaching people like you. Could it possibly be that these officers extended their arms out towards the threat and their gun was taken away? Really? That's what you're going with? Have you spent no time watching dashcam footage? When an officer loses their weapon it is typically because they are in a tussle on the ground being overpowered by one or more suspects. Weapon takeaways aren't happening because they are going to full arm extension at inappropriate times, it's because they are getting their ass kicked and can't defend their weapon from some trustee of modern chemistry who is alternately trying to take their weapon and crush their skull. The handgun is a very poor tool to get the job done. That fact has been PROVEN (with an average hit ratio of 20%) over the past 30 years or so. Here again you're completely ignoring individuals who have better teaching programs that have demonstrated considerably better success. Ever heard the name Tom Givens? He's an instructor in Memphis who has had over sixty of his regular joe (meaning not SF superman, not cops, just ordinary citizens) CCW holder students involved in a lethal force confrontation...the ones you claim to have a good read on...and his students are doing quite a bit better than 20%. As the FBI’s Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness Report states, the likelihood of you immediately incapacitating the threat is highly unlikely. Yet defensive handgun instructors are still teaching that it is an effective tool to defend yourself with. Well gee whiz, sport...maybe they're teaching that because it actually IS an effective tool of self defense. It is, in fact, the most effective tool for self defense that can be readily carried concealed on your person on a daily basis. Hence the popularity. They aren't magic talismans that ward off bad spirits, nor are they death rays, but the fact remains that they are indeed an effective tool of self defense. Defensive handgun training hasn’t changed very much over the past 30 years or more. And upon what, praytell, do you base that statement? I've seen enormous changes in the training game in just the last ten years. Were you not paying attention? I am not going to spend time arguing with people who don’t train or are keyboard commandos and spend more time on the internet than training. Awesome. So exactly how many hours of formal training does someone need to have before they're worthy of your time? 100? 200? 500? 1,000? I've got all that covered, chief. It's not exactly bright to hop onto a forum and make a bunch of authoritative statements with little to back up your assertions and then to start calling people who are taking issue with your assertions chairborne commandos when you haven't the tiniest clue who some of the people behind these screen names are or what their background is. Bad manners and name calling isn't making you look high speed, chief...it's making you look like somebody who's all sizzle and no steak. If you want to convince everybody that the entire training world is dead wrong and that somehow from the mire you alone have emerged with the shining beacon that will lead us to enlightenment, you'd better start doing a hell of a lot better job of PR and perhaps work on your ability to have a reasonable debate without behaving like a boor. |
|
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure you're wasting your time, dude. I think he took his ball and went home. Me thinks this didn't quite go how he thought it would. Yeah. I think you're right. But lots of good comments from the others here. So, at least the OP stirred some debate....and got hammered in the process. Here's his stats....probably back posting under another name! Post Count: 15 Posts Per Day: 0.01 Last Login Date: 10/19/2010 4:29:44 PM EST Last Post Date: 10/19/2010 4:37:07 PM EST |
|
To the OP - I was going over it in my mind, thinking of all of the things that I would type to reply to what you have posted.........
On second thought, I'll leave you with 2 concepts. 1) Front sight point of focus, period. 2) Lasers are meant for 2 situations: training, and Hollywood. Lasers do not belong on defensive handguns. Flame away! |
|
Quoted:
2) Lasers are meant for 2 situations: training, and Hollywood. Lasers do not belong on defensive handguns. I'm not going to flame, but I will disagree vehemently. There is no better low-light aiming reference currently available for a handgun than a laser. They work. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
2) Lasers are meant for 2 situations: training, and Hollywood. Lasers do not belong on defensive handguns. I'm not going to flame, but I will disagree vehemently. There is no better low-light aiming reference currently available for a handgun than a laser. They work. well, thank you for not flaming. What do you do when your eyes are used to looking for flashy red lights and its bright and sunny outside? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2) Lasers are meant for 2 situations: training, and Hollywood. Lasers do not belong on defensive handguns. I'm not going to flame, but I will disagree vehemently. There is no better low-light aiming reference currently available for a handgun than a laser. They work. well, thank you for not flaming. What do you do when your eyes are used to looking for flashy red lights and its bright and sunny outside? They're a SUPPLEMENT to good quality training of the fundamentals, ie front sight focus. They're made to be used when you cannot acquire your front sight. They're certainly not a replacement for quality training starting with the basics of how to shoot a pistol. Could you give us some insight into why you feel the way you do about lasers? |