The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 14, 2007, 10:01 PM   #151
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,682
Matthew,

I can only speak for myself, but I used the exact same aiming techniques I use in competition, practice, and training, which range from aiming using a physical index (kinesthetic awareness) to strong front sight focus.

As for Weaver.. I never shoot Weaver, the iso is more versatile and more natural.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 14, 2007, 10:05 PM   #152
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
In other words Zak..you use both sighted and point shooting.
Which is a good thing.
I still think the last two photos show bad tactics..meaning it appears the good guy is planted rather than trying to shoot while moving offline.
( And if he is, in fact, in motion, he would find it a lot more natural to move with only one hand on the gun.)
And, IMHO, he would be better served with one handed shooting in these situations, so as to have a free hand available for a strike/parry/block.
I would also love to place a Weaver trained shooter in these type situations and see how they would react.
Are all of the photos of you, or are other shooters being shown?
matthew temkin is offline  
Old March 14, 2007, 10:16 PM   #153
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
I think part of the problem for some derives from the term "stance". Stance is just a word used so that people can understand what you are trying to convey. What we teach is a "natural" stance. It differs from an isoceles stance even though it looks similar. A true isoceles has both feet in line, facing the target. A natural stance typically has the weak foot slightly forward. The natural stance is a "stance" only in the sense that it is a platform for the gun. It is standing the way the body naturally does. It is never fixed or rigid. In fact its biggest advantage is fluidity. From a natural stance, you can move easily in any direction. Partly because you are relaxed to begin with, so unlike Weaver, you don't have to relax to move. Your upper body and lower body are totally independant of each other. That's what allows you to shoot from any position on any terrain, standing, kneeling, sitting, prone, smooth ground, rough ground, inclines, declines, you name it.
Lurper is offline  
Old March 14, 2007, 10:20 PM   #154
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
Sky the problem with your premise is that fear of death requires conscious thought. Many don't have time to experience fear (or conscious thought) because events unfold too quickly. If you are trained to the point that your actions are subconscious, you will not have conscious thought. That is my whole point.


Fear only exists in the future, it cannot exist in the present. It is based on one of many outcomes. If you live and exist in the present moment, you banish fear.
Lurper is offline  
Old March 14, 2007, 11:43 PM   #155
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
I still think the last two photos show bad tactics..meaning it appears the good guy is planted rather than trying to shoot while moving offline.
Seriously guys. I know a photograph only captures an instant in time, but you can see motion in the pictures. One foot off or partially off the ground and stance which would be unbalanced in the absence of movement are big clues. Like I said in post #150, guys are moving off the x rearward and/or laterally in all these photos. Some are moving fast (e.g. the last one) and some are moving slow (#4) but all are moving.

As for shooting one-handed, I'll leave it up for debate. For me: not yet at grappling distance (out of arms reach) and ability to deliver multiple hits while moving fast = good two-handed grip.

Quote:
Are all of the photos of you, or are other shooters being shown?
There are 5 people shown, 2 role players and 3 students, and the same set of people is not in all the photos. I think you have your answer.

-z
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 12:05 AM   #156
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
Quote:
Second, you are factually incorrect to assume nobody is moving off the X. All the students are moving backward and/or laterally.
Some look like they're in 'stand and deliver'.....not moving.
The X represents the best directions to move off the X....diagonally if possible and not just straight back. Training should also incorporate one handed shooting.
Quote:
You commit the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion ("begging the question") with the assumption that a reaction will be a "combat crouch", to prove that it is not realistic FOF training. That just logically makes no sense.
Oh, really? Ever been shot at? Did you straighten up or crouch?

There is no "logic" in our instinctive responses to 'real' fear of dying. We all will automatically crouch and try to move. Many will scream.

Because there is no fear of dying or pain involved, FoF is great for learning some tactics, less so for learning stress-driven responses.
Train in the way your body will instinctively respond to being shot at....and you'll be well served for self-defense.
.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 12:22 AM   #157
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
Quote:
Sky the problem with your premise is that fear of death requires conscious thought. Many don't have time to experience fear (or conscious thought) because events unfold too quickly. If you are trained to the point that your actions are subconscious, you will not have conscious thought. That is my whole point.


Fear only exists in the future, it cannot exist in the present. It is based on one of many outcomes. If you live and exist in the present moment, you banish fear.
Philosophically good points, Lurper. Hard to argue that we will ponder our death in moments of action.
But we all have an instinctive fear of dying....and we all will react in certain predictable ways, both physically and mentally.

Best that we train in those predictable ways. Like using gross motor skills because the fine skills won't work in extreme danger.
.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 06:55 AM   #158
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
Zak..are any of those other people trained in the Weaver stance or are they all mainly MI shooters?
I ask because it is my belief that quite often it is the Weaver that falls apart under stress...even if one is well trained in it's use.
matthew temkin is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 07:41 AM   #159
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
How many times have they run through the simunition shoots? Just an observation from some one who has run sims in training and took those same people to war later. The first time they run sims most are a soup sandwich, I mean literally guys dropping their rifles, doing the helicopter while pulling the trigger, etc. The more they run through it, the better they get. This is part of the "stress inoculation" that LtCol Grossman discusses. When those same people get into their first fire fight, they perform closer to the first time they were under sims, but not nearly as spastic. As they see more combat, their performance improves.
__________________
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
STLRN is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 09:24 AM   #160
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
.

Crouch
Move off the X


.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 10:54 AM   #161
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
Sky
The question I have re: your picture is:
Have those guys been trained to crouch while or before moving? Also, are they crouching because they were behind cover? The guy in the foreground obviously isn't shooting. Their level of training is also a consideration. You can't expect those who are not well trained to respond the same way those who are would. It's like the difference between a cherry and a veteran.

Also:
Quote:
....and we all will react in certain predictable ways, both physically and mentally.
It's really not predictable, if it was you would be able to predict who, what, where and when the effect would occur. You can't. That is why so many try to study the phenomenon . What makes the difference between those who lose control and those who don't? Studies and experience indicate that it is training (and mental training) that make the difference.

Think about it this way:
I'll use the Son Tay prison raid as an example. A nearly exact replica of the prison was built so the raiders could reherse their actions. When the actual raid occured, things went exceptionally well. Part of the reason is because the raiders spent so much time rehersing. If they hadn't it would have been nothing but a clusterf**k on the ground. Take that down to a smaller scale: think about just rehersing the mechanics of shooting to the point where you never have to consciously think about them. Your mind makes the association that every time I have a firearm in my hands, this is what I do.

We will probably never reconcile our views on the issue. You will not convince me that fear of death is even a consideration until and unless you are wounded, down to your last rounds or see your executioner approaching. I also know from personal experience and from talking with others that it is just as likely that you will perform as you are trained to as not. I don't really believe it is fair or accurate to say that at this point in time there is definitive proof either way. The jury is still out.


I'm sorry, it really boils down to what you believe. But if you watch, you will see more and more evidence supporting the contention that it can be overcome. You will see more and more emphasis on the mental aspect of training. Hopefully, one day, mental training will become part of a system of standardized training for those who depend on firearms every day.
Lurper is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 10:56 AM   #162
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Some look like they're in 'stand and deliver'.....not moving.
They are all moving, back and/or laterally. Here's what was happening, since I was an eyewitness to all these situations:

#1. student is retreating more or less straight to the rear and getting shot

#2. student is moving backwards and drawing at instant assailent draws knife

#3. cont. from #2, student continues to move away from knife assailent while continuing to deliver fire. note that knife assailent is no longer visible in frame, distance has been gained. the next thing student does is to move sideways (left)

#4 student has moved back and to the right, though at this point he is moving slower than he should (note proximity of knife assailent).

#5. student started out near front left bumper when assailent drew knife, he backed up around the front and right-hand side of the car (presumably used as obstruction) while delivering 5 rounds into knife assailent. you can see the last UTM marker impacting the knife assailent's shirt in this picture. student is moving pretty fast right here.

As far as what worked and what didn't work.. in some of these students and got shot or stabbed and in some of them they didn't. I am pretty sure the student in #1 sustained multiple hits. The guy in 2, 3, and 5 didn't get stabbed or shot in those two scenarios. I don't remember if the knife guy made it to the student in #4, but he is really close...

Quote:
Oh, really? Ever been shot at? Did you straighten up or crouch?
There is no "logic" in our instinctive responses to 'real' fear of dying. We all will automatically crouch and try to move. Many will scream.
Because there is no fear of dying or pain involved, FoF is great for learning some tactics, less so for learning stress-driven responses.
If you want to speculate that people act differently in "real" stress than training stress exercises, that's fine. I would be interested to see scientifically-valid evidence supporting either position. What you have offered is speculation.

The only reason I posted was to refute your statement, quote
Quote:
FOF "teaches, again and again, that the traditionally taught stances, sighting and modern technique disappear quickly in a semi-realistic encounter".
That is false, demonstrated by these photos. All you have to do is agree that you mis-stated that point and I'll shut up about it.

Quote:
Zak..are any of those other people trained in the Weaver stance or are they all mainly MI shooters?
I really don't know, sorry. Most of them had been to at least one defensive pistol school, some of them had many, but I don't know all their backgrounds and training preferences.

Quote:
How many times have they run through the simunition shoots?
Not sure if you were talking to me or not. But two of those three students had never shot FOF before. I think the student in #1 may have, but I don't remember for certain. This was not the first exercise of the class, but all exercises were different and all were blind.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 08:31 PM   #163
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
Isn't it passing strange Bill Jordan, of the Border Patrol, the same one who wrote, "No Second Place Winner", wrote that one should stand erect when shooting in a gunfight. Now I kind of think he was in quite a few gun fights, and he would know if one crouched or not.

So I would not spend much time worrying about if you are gonna crouch or not. Bring the dang gun up and shoot.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 09:58 PM   #164
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
From page 106 of Applegate's book Kill Or get Killed..
.."There will be times when immediate circumstances will not allow the shooter to use the crouch, but in most cases this will be his basic firing position.
The instinctive pointing method, however, can be equally accurate and effective from an upright standing position."
And I am sure the same applies to sighted shooting.
matthew temkin is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 10:43 PM   #165
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 263
Quote:
Not sure if you were talking to me or not. But two of those three students had never shot FOF before. I think the student in #1 may have, but I don't remember for certain. This was not the first exercise of the class, but all exercises were different and all were blind.
The first thing that I learned in FOF was how my "conditioned" responses got me dead early on and every time. Stand and deliver, extremely controlled movement, back peddeling, and trying to get to the sights led to me being a BB/knife sponge. But Luckily I learn fast. An explosive move off of the line of attack, followed up with dynamic movement and threat focused skills proved to be much more effective and efficient.

My "taking hits/cuts" ratio dropped dramatically once I threw out my "conditioned" response with almost no loss to my "making hits" ratio.

What I reverted back to was the natural reactions of a kid that grew up with BBgun/rock/orange wars..... for the hell of it.

"To hit and not be hit"..... because being hit was usually a lot more substantial than it is with airsoft or simunitions.

From what I see in the pictures we are seeing a good example of the lessons of what not to do and why. What I see in the pictures is "mutual death." But that should be the first lesson inside of any quality FOF.

Hopefully the lessons were learned and the students progressed into something much more effective and efficient than the conditioned responses.
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Owner and Operator of Fight Focused Concepts
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 10:47 PM   #166
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,682
Agreed. I actually posted my AAR of the class here 9/2005. Also note that only one assailent in those pictures has a gun, and the one guy fighting a pistol-armed assailent sure is a bullet sponge.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 15, 2007, 10:55 PM   #167
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 263
Quote:
Also note that only one assailent in those pictures has a gun, and the one guy fighting a pistol-armed assailent sure is a bullet sponge.
Good point Zak, I am going to edit my post to correct my error.
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Owner and Operator of Fight Focused Concepts
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 16, 2007, 09:52 AM   #168
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
So, we can all be trained to that level. The difference is in discipline and the price one is willing to pay. That's all.
Sorry, but that is just wrong. In essense, it seems, you are saying that if we all just practice enough we can all equal the basketball playing ability of Michael Jordan or the sniping ability of Carlos Hathcock and so on. Even if that were true, which I doubt, we get back to the idea that just because one "can" be trained to that level doesn't mean it is a good investment of time and resources.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old March 16, 2007, 09:56 AM   #169
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
That is EXACTLY what this was-- and the majority of the students had never done FOF training before. The students did not know what the situations would be nor if they would be "fight" or "not fight" scenarios.
But they all knew they were in a non-lethal training scenario, they knew in advance that they would be confronted with a shot/no-shoot situation, they knew when that situation would begin, and there was little if any true surprise to it. Thus I question whether or not the fact that the students maintained a preset type of response is indicative of what would happen in an actual incident.
Quote:
If you want to speculate that people act differently in "real" stress than training stress exercises, that's fine. I would be interested to see scientifically-valid evidence supporting either position.
Although it is not a scientific test, I think that the experiences of the NTI are pretty indicative. Several participants, well-known trainers, have commented on how quickly the trained response they are used to and that they regularly see in others disappears in truly unpredictable situations.

Last edited by David Armstrong; March 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old March 16, 2007, 10:03 AM   #170
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
It's really not predictable, if it was you would be able to predict who, what, where and when the effect would occur.
This is one of those times when defining terms becomes very important. Predictability comes ina variety of forms. Some are very precise (fine), some are very broad (gross). I cannot predict which number the ball will land in when the roulette wheel is spun each time, but we can accurately predict how many times it will land on a spot over time.
Quote:
But if you watch, you will see more and more evidence supporting the contention that it can be overcome.
I haven't seen any evidence that it can be overcome. There is evidence that the onset can be delayed or the set point can be raised, but given the right circumstances it will occur for with virtually everyone.

Last edited by David Armstrong; March 16, 2007 at 10:53 AM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.17553 seconds with 11 queries