Bad Practice!

[redstategunnut]

You sound like the guys who tell me that they only train stand up because no fight they are in is ever going to go to the ground.

I really hope you never find out the hard way that you don't even know what you don't know.

[raimius]

I'm still not quite getting why the commonly taught drawstroke seems so wrong to some. What are your issues with its efficiency, accuracy, and use in various situations?

It's OK for retention shooting. It's good for moderate to longer distances. It's consistent. It does not flag the shooter. It's pretty darn efficient.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

I have not, nor do I intend to do so.

Originally Posted by rodeo roy

...basically I checked out and did not really give what he was teaching a chance...

In other words, neither of you have any real experience with solid, professional training, nor do you understand from experience what it involves and the skills and knowledge acquired. So your critiques are based on guesses and assumptions, rather than actual data. As such, I personally don't see much reason to take your criticisms or opinions seriously.

For anyone who might be interested, here is an article I wrote on my last trip to Gunsite.

[jimbob86]

I'm still not quite getting why the commonly taught drawstroke seems so wrong to some.

Because they have seen new shooters trying it the first time, and concluded that their waist level point shooting like they do at CAS rondezvous is superior.

If they can draw, move and fire and get 2 center hits at 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, then they might be OK...... that's the standard. I daresay that Jack Weaver proved at Big Bear Lake 60+ years ago that point shooting was not as accurate or fast outside of bad breath distance as using two hands .... Cooper wrote of it for near half a century ..... and yet there are still those who continue to convince me that he had "only ploughed the sea".....

_____________________________________________________

"There is no funtional difference between those who can not read, and those who do not."

[Jim Watson]

The class the OP observed was incomplete, as I believe has been made clear.

I have seen some good SA shooters and they can get the first shot on target as soon as anybody with any action type, and adequately fast for the next four or five.

As far as other obsolete weapons mentioned, some old guy name of Jeff Cooper called the .30-30 lever action the Brooklyn Carbine and considered it superior to the AK for midrange self defense. And NYPD detectives once carried "coach guns" on raids because of their simplicity, leaving the pumps to patrolmen and autos to SWAT.

[jimbob86]

I have seen some good SA shooters and they can get the first shot on target as soon as anybody with any action type, and adequately fast for the next four or five.

They won't ever beat Jerry Miculek ....or any of the really great shooters using the modern tecnique....

Apples to apples, two handed aimed fire is more effective. The OP saw some novices learning that tecnique, and since he was faster point shooting than the newbs, concluded that the tecnique was bad...... put him up against a two handed shooter of similar experience level on a shot timer, with penalties for mikes and poor hits, and he'd lose.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

...I have seen some good SA shooters and they can get the first shot on target as soon as anybody with any action type, and adequately fast for the next four or five....

Absolutely true. In fact, I believe that in the past Clint Smith has put on some classes on the defensive use of the single action revolver.

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

...As far as other obsolete weapons mentioned, some old guy name of Jeff Cooper called the .30-30 lever action the Brooklyn Carbine and considered it superior to the AK for midrange self defense. And NYPD detectives once carried "coach guns" on raids because of their simplicity, leaving the pumps to patrolmen and autos to SWAT.

Also true. In fact Jeff Cooper often mentioned that he liked a short barrel SxS shotgun with exposed hammers for home defense, because it can be kept with shells in the chambers and hammers down indefinitely without putting any tension on any springs.

It's not about what the gun is. It's about good training and skill using it.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...They won't ever beat Jerry Miculek ....or any of the really great shooters using the modern tecnique....

Well heck, neither will I -- even with everything I've learned at Gunsite, and from Louis Awerbuck and from Massad Ayood.

But I've no doubt that I'm better because of what I've learned at Guniste, from Louis and from Mas (and others), than I ever would have been without that training.

[jimbob86]

But I've no doubt that I'm better because of what I've learned at Guniste, from Louis and from Mas (and others), than I ever would have been without that training.

I don't doubt that at all..... your point reinforces mine: that the OP's assertion that two handed shooting, or one handed with the weak hand close to the body, was "bad training" was based on his perception of new shooters abilities, when compared to his abilities as a somewhat experienced point shooter..... I still think your average IDPA shooter would flat smoke the OP in a timed event.

[rodeo roy]

If my post was misunderstood let me be clear. I stated I revisited the type of training described and I did not find it practical for me. I also stated that I was less informed than many hear. My purpose for carrying is not to show off my hobby, nor for work. It's only for protection and I practice according to what I feel would work for me and what's in my comfort zone. Its a personal choice I made / make, I also stated that practice in itself builds memory that will help should the need arise.

It seems as others dislike criticism. That's ok. Like I have stated many time sd is as much about staying away from places not in keeping with me having a good experience so to that end I'll pack my guns and go. I leave to the know it all hobbyist among you.

Happy Shooting, see you at the rodeo.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by rodeo roy

...My purpose for carrying is not to show off my hobby, nor for work. It's only for protection and I practice according to what I feel would work for me and what's in my comfort zone...

Well some of those of us who have sought out and gotten training also carry for personal protection, not to show off (and I carry whenever I legally can, mostly my visits to Nevada and Arizona). And you are free to make your own decision, but that doesn't mean that your decision will necessarily be helpful to anyone else.

And --

• If we wind up in a violent confrontation, we can't know ahead of time what will happen and how it will happen. And thus we can't know ahead of time what we will need to be able to do to solve our problem.
  
  
• If we find ourselves in a violent confrontation, we will respond with whatever skills we have available at the time. That might be good enough, or it might not be.
  
  
• The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the more likely we'll be to be able to respond appropriately and effectively. The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the luckier we'll be.

[FireForged]

If my post was misunderstood let me be clear. I stated I revisited the type of training described and I did not find it practical for me. I also stated that I was less informed than many here. My purpose for carrying is not to show off my hobby, nor for work. It's only for protection and I practice according to what I feel would work for me and what's in my comfort zone. Its a personal choice I made / make, I also stated that practice in itself builds memory that will help should the need arise.

Very well said..

I am not against new ideas or specialized training.. training is a good thing. However, I will say that I am still and will always be one of those guys who drives a AR15 by grip'n the mag well and getting small behind the rifle. Its what I know, its what I learned on a static range shooting at pie plates in the 80's. No matter all the smerks and grins over the years, I have done just fine in any shoot/move or carbine courses I have attended. Maybe not as good as good as some of the youngens but a passing score all the same. Again, I am not against training, training is good. I am just not inclined to believe that a person with good common sense and average shooting skills is somehow helpless in the face of a 6 foot brick wall simply because no one has trained him how to get over it.

[zombietactics]

... not inclined to believe that a person with good common sense and average shooting skills is somehow helpless ...

With all genuine respect due ... A mouse is not helpless against a cat either, but any rational person will be hard pressed to explain why the latter won't be the victor on the basis of anything but blind chance. The battle doesn't always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift ... but we generally have an expectation in that regard as well.

I can't think of any field of endeavor where "average" is anything but a shade above incompetent. I've been a victim of violent crime on 4 occasions, 2 with guns pointed at me. I'll bet my continued survival on a more robust sense of reality.

[orionengnr]

From the way you describe the drill in the initial post, sounds very similar to the "four step" presentation drill that GunSite (and probably others) teaches.

The idea (as I understand it) is to keep the off-hand from being swept during the initial presentation, yet getting the off-hand into a two-handed grip as soon as it is practical to do so.

IIRC, they advocate that one should practice this form of presentation daily (15 minutes, 100 repetitions, whatever) until it is rote.

I can see that if you are in a "non-standard" (whatever that is) encounter such as grappling with a BG, this ritual may place you at a disadvantage.

I can see that this can present what seems to be a quandary...and I do not speak for any trainer or organization. My understanding is that we train most for the most-likely situation.

Add another variable--the same situation exists for those who carry OWB sometimes, and pocket-carry other times. When "It" happens, will your hand go to the wrong place? Can you ingrain several different presentations into your sub-conscious, and select the right one when the adrenaline is flowing? (Doubtful, IMHO).

Or, can you commit to that 15-minutes-or-100-presentations every single day, without fail? And even if you do, you are either training for the "four step" presentation, or for a "retention" drill. I know someone who dedicates the last 15 minutes of a range session to strictly "retention" drills...if the range he is visiting allows it.

Lots of questions, none of them easy. I suspect most of us are somewhere in the middle.

FWIW, I have historically tried to limit my "change-overs" to "Winter" and "Not-Winter"...and in the last couple years, I am trying to just settle on one handgun and one carry method, and stick with it. year-round. That eliminates one of the two variables. Not sure how to eliminate the other.

I am not a low-drag, high speed dude. I am heading into old-fartdom. My range does not permit presentation from a holster, double taps, or other "advanced" techniques...and that is fine. They are running a range, not a school.

Sorry for the novel. It is a question worthy of thought and discussion, and we all may learn something.

[dawg23]

Well some of those of us who have sought out and gotten training also carry for personal protection, not to show off (and I carry whenever I legally can, mostly my visits to Nevada and Arizona). And you are free to make your own decision, but that doesn't mean that your decision will necessarily be helpful to anyone else

Frank:

Thanks for trying. I'm sure you have helped a lot of folks with your posts in this thread, while it's likely that one or two will continue to ignore all that you have shared.

Having trained with a few respected instructors (Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, Tom Givens, James Yeager, John Farnam, Jerry Miculek, Andy Stanford, Karl Rehn and few more), I think I understand more than I did when I first started carrying. But the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

[Powderman]

You will fight in the same manner that you train. This has been proven over and over again throughout the ages.

Having in your mind what you will do in a gunfight is nothing new. Expecting to do the exact actions you are thinking about is wishful thinking at best--because (as it also has been proven), the best battle plan goes straight to hell when the first shot is fired.

So, how should you train?

Train so that you can draw your weapon, under any circumstance that you can duplicate, and put accurate rounds on target as fast as it is possible to do so.

Practice your draw stroke. The part where you move your hands to your chest was meant to get your hand out of the way of your own gun. It does you no good to shoot yourself as you draw.

The method of placing a closed fist next to your chest is meant to try to maintain your balance while firing. This is like boxing--only you're punching with your handgun instead of your fist.

Practice while standing. Practice while walking. Practice from the ground--prone, rollover prone, side, strong hand, support hand.

Your body is the platform--just as the cannon on a main battle tank, you serve at that time as a platform for your weapon, and you are servicing targets.

Practice both instinctive and sighted shooting.

And--practice a LOT. Get your holstered pistol, clear ALL ammunition from your area, put a target on the wall, and draw. Do it slow--but make it steady and smooth. Steady will be smooth. Smooth will turn into fast.

Try to practice your draw 100 times a day--nonstop--for 30 days. When your holster gets soft and floppy, get a good, quality holster, and practice with it.

After you practice that draw stroke, head to the range. Load with one round at a time, and draw and fire on a target at about 50 yards away.

Why so far?

If you can hit the target at 50 yards, you'll be able to write your name at 7 or 10.

Do all of that as you study your State's law, contact your local prosecutor for explanations concerning self defense.

And hope fervently that you never, ever have to draw a firearm on another human being with lethal intent. Remember well the phrase: Si vis pace, para bellum.

[Jammer Six]

If I'm ever in a gunfight, it would be almost too much to hope for that my opponent will be using a single action revolver.

[BlueTrain]

In some ways, this is an entertaining thread. If someone dropped in out of the past, say 1960, he would swear you all had been talking about a walk and draw competition. You younger folks probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Tell me this: do any trainers ever recommend another trainer or another school? My impression from reading what some of them have written is that their way is the only way. Another impression I have is that no one has any common sense all on their own and it takes a week's worth of training before anyone is trained enough to even touch a real weapon.

I'd say it would take a lot of humility for any instructor to admit that an individual could actually come up with a good idea all on his own, yet I have read of at least one who did make a compliment about someone who developed a carry method that was suited to his own circumstances.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

...Tell me this: do any trainers ever recommend another trainer or another school?...

IME, the good ones sure do.

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

...impression I have is that no one has any common sense all on their own...

On the other hand, a lot of so called "common sense" is "nonsense" -- e. g., the "common sense" gun control of the Brady Bunch.

Common sense is a poor substitute for knowledge. Common sense might tell you to put on the breaks when your car starts to skid, but knowledge will tell you not to.

[Jammer Six]

I recommend other instructors and other ranges to every class I teach, and I tell every class that trying to introduce someone to shooting by taking them to a range is like trying to introduce someone to the ocean by taking them to a small lake. The world of shooting is huge, and sometimes I list a few (or a dozen) different examples.

Then I tell them that if they take lessons from other instructors they will quickly realize how limited my field of expertise really is.

Someone who tells you their way to shoot is the only way is marking themselves as someone to avoid.

[BlueTrain]

Okay, folks, you read it here first: leave your common sense at home.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

Okay, folks, you read it here first: leave your common sense at home.

I guess you're using your common sense instead of your reading skills.

[zombietactics]

Okay, folks, you read it here first: leave your common sense at home.

Nobody said any such thing, so please resist the temptation to build strawman arguments.

There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance.

Tell me this: do any trainers ever recommend another trainer or another school?

Many do. It's hard to miss that if you look into the subject much. I know that James Yeager, Gabe Suarez, Rob Pincus, Tom Givens, Travis Haley, Chris Costa, Mas Ayoob, Paul Howe, Larry Vickers, Dave Spaulding, and a whole host of lesser-knowns have been quite open about this. Many make it a point to train with other companies several times a year.

[BlueTrain]

On the other hand, a lot of so called "common sense" is "nonsense"

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

On the other hand, a lot of so called "common sense" is "nonsense"

Yes, I wrote that. And it is a true statement. I illustrated the truth of that statement by pointing out that the Brady Campaign frequently refers to the "common sense" of their gun control proposals.

zombietactics very nicely expanded on the point when he wrote, in post 48 (emphasis by underlining in the original, emphasis in bold added):

Originally Posted by zombietactics

...There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance....

When one is reasonably well versed in something, he has an appropriate and adequate foundation of knowledge or valid data relating to that subjuect. He can then apply a rational process to to that knowledge or data and reach conclusions. The rational process some people will call logic, and others, perhaps, common sense. But whatever it is called, it will produce valid or useful conclusions only if the foundational knowledge or data itself is valid.

But some folks don't bother actually learning anything, or acquiring actual knowledge, or finding and validating data. They seem to believe that they can figure everything out and wind up applying what they call common sense to guesses and untested assumptions. And that produces nonsense.