Showdown at Not-So-O.K. Corral

[Rickmeister]

As a gun owner who is somewhat preoccupied with the aggressive nature of the world he lives in, I have spent considerable time training along "universally" established personal-defense guidelines. So I was a bit confounded when I read about it...

A recent article in a popular gun magazine---either Guns & Ammo or Combat Handguns, I can't remember which---says that, in the real world, a gunfight demands an immediate, instinctive action on our part; not a carefully coordinated, well rehearsed, eye-on-the-sights approach.

Let's face it: In the heat of a gun battle, when industrial quantities of adrenaline are pumping through your dilated arteries and billions of neurons are firing away at light speed between the synaptic junctions of your gelatinous urgency-battered brain, can you realistically carry out the premeditated, step-by-step, IDPA-sanctioned routine you practiced so long? Can you unequivocally "bring your gun to eye-level", "zero in on the alpha", "get the flash picture", "line up the front sight", "confirm", and tumble the BG dead in 1.5 seconds? I wonder.

The article claims that, in a panicky, heightened state of awareness, gut-level instinct tends to take over regardless of our training. Furthermore, it says that we should make no attempt to repress it; that we are capable of some pretty outstanding feets on our own, if only we trusted our eyes and hands without reservation, not so much our memories (Remember, Luke: the force is with you. TURN OFF THE DAMN COMPUTER, YOU BUMBLING IDIOT!!! ). The article even offers a few examples of ace pistoleros who proved that there was no real need for sights---sometimes going so far as to having them removed---and came on top of every situation they were confronted with. One of them consistently hit flying clay pigeons with a hip-shot from his handgun! A glorious testimony to spontaneous hand-eye coordination.

Your thoughts on this?

[striderteen]

Reflexive shooting, yes. Instinctive shooting, no.

I would trust the U.S. Army on the subject. According to Field Manual 90-10-7 Appendix K, "Close Quarters Combat Techniques":

Proper weapon carry technique, stance, aiming, shot placement, and trigger manipulation constitute the act of reflexive shooting. This method of shooting is the only way for the clearing team members to consistently succeed without excessive casualties.

The four aiming techniques all have their place during combat in
built-up areas, but the aimed quick-kill technique is the one most often used in close quarters combat.

(1) Slow aimed fire. This technique is the most accurate. It consists of taking up a steady, properly aligned sight picture and squeezing off rounds. It is normally used for engagements beyond 25 meters or when the need for accuracy overrides speed.

(2) Rapid aimed fire. This technique features an imperfect sight picture in which windage is critical but elevation is of lesser importance. When the front sight post is in line with the target, the gunner squeezes the trigger. This technique is used against targets out to 15 meters and is fairly accurate and
very fast.

(3) Aimed quick kill. This technique consists of using a good spot weld and placing the front sight post flush on top of the rear peep sight. It is used for very quick shots out to 12 meters. Windage is important, but elevation is not critical with relation to the target. This technique is the fastest and most accurate. With practice, soldiers can become deadly shots at close range.

(4) Instinctive fire. This technique is the least desirable. The gunner focuses on the target and points the weapon in the target’s general direction, using muscle memory to compensate for lack of aim. This technique should be used only in emergencies.

[C.R.Sam]

Good training is reflected in reflexive actions.

Sam

[Samurai]

I have run into two philosophies on the relationship between self-defense training and real life "adrenaline based" reactions:

The first school of thought is that one must train so often and in such a repetative fashion that your instincive reaction to a hostile situation IS to perform the self-defensive maneuver.

The second is the notion that if one trains hard and long enough, in a manner that is realistic to the expected situation, that person will lose fear of the situation. In other words, if you constantly train yourself in disarming an attacker with a knife, given that your partner does not cooperate with this disarming during training, soon you will have no fear of knives, and a real assailant with a knife will not draw in you the reaction of fear and excitement. You will simply be able to stay cool and perform as you are able.

Personally, I am not sure which philosophy is best. I think it is dependent upon individual preferences. However, both ideas require the same basic thing for a chance of success: Practice, Practice, and more Practice. This is the key to self-defense.

[scotjute]

If you practice repeatedly, so that the act of raising your gun, aiming and firing becomes
second nature, your mind is freed to think as your training automatically kicks in.
This works well with hunting and should work well with in
combat situations. The stress factor is increased, but the
principle remains.
Train until what you are doing becomes second nature.
In time of stress your training will kick in automatically.

[riddleofsteel]

like in Martial Arts, you have to know the rules and have the training before "freeform" becomes a viable option. The "formless" techniques that Bruce Lee taught and used were based on a life time of training.

[Jeff White]

Back in the mid 60s to late 70s the Army used to teach a "quick kill" course in BCT. It started using Daisy BB guns with no sights and progressed to M16s with the sights taped over.

Many soldiers got very proficient, but it took thousnads of shots and hours of practice. But the skill like so many is perishable.

My police firearms instructor could shoot instinctively from the hip (just like in the westerns) very accurately. The hours and hours of practice and thousands of rounds of ammunition this requires is beyond the reach of most of us. I'm certain that htere are some people who's hand/eye coordination is such that they are naturals at it but the rest of us must practice.

If you practice enough it will seem instictive. 5000 correct repetitions are enough to start developing a muscle memory and make this SEEM to be instinctive. Just like when you drive and children dart out toward the street at the end of the block, your foot eases up on the gas and prepares to brake without your having to think about doing this. But when you started driving, you had to remind yourself to. Practice enough and the proper sighted technique will be the same way.

Jeff

[D.W. Drang]

It was in G&A, a trainer from the State PD of that great gun-loving state of Taxachusetts wrote a series.

You've stumbled upon the core of the long-lasting dispute between Col Jeff Cooper and Col Rex Applegate.

Col Cooper says training will develop proper instinctive reposnses including use of a "flash sight picture."

Col Applegate said that was incorrect, that instinct would cause one to hunch over and shoot from the hip, a la the old FBI "combat crouch." He was also free with criticism of "so called 'Gunners' Gurus...'" Gee, Colonel who could you be talking about.

Personaly, I've never used either technique in combat. I do know that, based on what the Army taught me about combat pistolcraft in all the years wearing the uniform that I spent packing a sidearm, a pistol never comes out of the holster except at the range, so unless the manuals quoted are from SOCOM, who cares what the Army sez?

(See if you can find a copy of a book called "The Close Combat Files of Col Rex Applegate" or something like that, Paladin Press, I believe, which includes lesson plans from Applegate's time spent during World War Twice with the Military Intelligence Corps and OSS. Good stuff, whichever side of the arguement you're on.)

[D.W. Drang]

As for matters relating to Small Arms training and the military, I'd put my faith in what the Marines are doing (and I was in the Army).

Well, it may or may not be significant that Jeff Cooper is entitled to put "COL, USMC (Ret)" behind his name, and Rex Applegate had to settle for "COL, USA (Ret)", but Jeff Cooper started developing "The Modern Technique of the Pistol" while assigned to Quantico, when he was shooting with the FBI, who had originated Point Shooting...

Rex Applegate was working with some British Policeman...
(I was gona leave it at that and see how many flames I could get, but no: Yes, I know, William Fairbairn was not exactly the Bobby on the beat, anbd Shanghai was not exactly "the beat".)

[trapshooter]

started his serious pistol work in an attempt to prove or disprove the reported shooting feats of some of the Old West marksment.

Basically, when he got done, he said that, with single action pistols, most of recorded gunfight lore was BS. Could not have been done with the equipment available. Now, there may be some very fine shooting done with single-action cowboy pistols, but none of them could match the feats achieved with talented shooters using DA revolvers. Ed pretty much de-bunked 'fanning' as a viable technique for fast, accurate fire.

Some may disagree. I don't watch cowboy action shooting much, so I can't say there aren't some decent shooters out there doing this stuff. But I doubt they accomplish much beyond what Ed did, if they use period weapons.

McGivern was a proponent, (after much experimentation) of the DA revolver as the fastest accurate handgun available. Keep in mind, this was in the early part of the 20th century, and Ed never saw a full-bore racegun. But he did use some decent semi-autos, and didn't think they were as good (couldn't 'push' them to counter recoil). But the key thing, regarding the subject, is that McGivern AIMED his fire. He could, and did, put five rounds into a playing card at 15-25 feet in less than a second using an unmodified S&W revolver (except for a timer rig attached). Several times, in fact.

One guy that he shot with, a Montana State Trooper, could hit about 80% on man sized targets with a .357 mag at 600 yards using what McGivern called 'line-shooting'. (Ed didn't recommend this as standard tactics, I don't think. And he made no mention of what he thought of the terminal effects at that range on a man as I recall, but he wasn't stupid).

I think McGiverns 'push' method of rapid, aimed DA revolver fire is probably a lost art, except by maybe a few of the very finest shooters out there (I am not one of these). Also, McGivern, by his own admission, fired in excess of thirty thousand rounds in a year through his pistols. Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting. E. McGivern. This book is back in print I hear. Very interesting, even if you don't like what he says.

[riddleofsteel]

The difference here is similar to archery. Those that have delt with bows know what I mean. i can shoot a bare bow with no sights and after quite a bit of practice I get to the point where I can hit well enought to hunt. Or, to depend on where the arrow is going. However, I need to shoot a little every day or at least every other day to keep that "edge" I need to shoot a bare bow well.
On the other hand I can shoot a modern bow with sights extremely well. I adapt to sighted shooting faster and if I have to go a week or more between practice sessions. I can pick up the bow with sights and still stand an excellent chance of hitting what I am shooting at.
The analogy holds up as well because instinctive shooters can snap shoot or shoot under stress better than most of us with sights. Its too bad we all do not have the time to shoot every day.
I read once were William Hickock rose each day around noon, ate his breakfast and shot the contents of his two revolvers every day. The he would clean them and reload so he was sure to have fresh loads for the next night. Little wonder he stayed sharp.

[Art Eatman]

My experience with IPSC in the pre-race-gun era leads me to believe that a whole bunch of practice, plus doing club matches against the clock, is about all one can do. If you stay with it, you'll develop a reflex pattern that will operate under stress.

In other words, create some uniformity--how you carry, your general shooting style (will vary with distance) and then it's just practice, practice, practice.

Now, if you get into IDPA, and really psych yourself up for a "run", you'll be amazed at the stress levels you'll create in yourself! After you mess up a few times, you'll learn self-control during this self-created stress.

I reckon that's about as close as you can get to the "real thing", but it is well known that "As you train, so shall you perform."

$0.02, Art

[LASur5r+P]

Since I see some of the more experienced crowd wading into this conversation, I felt that I needed to add my .02 cents.
Please keep in mind, just like the writer of the article, I am only expressing my opinion based more on some of my experiences. You can pooh pooh it all you want, but it doesn't change that it did happen.

One night, when I was on the 'puter. I decided to count the number of armed confrontations that I have faced as a civilian, only two time involved me presenting a gun in defense. So please take these two experiences for what they are worth.
In the early seventies I started regaining interest in handguns, but not to the extent that I do now. I started out with "instinctive point shooting"...I used to hang out a lot with buddies in the Sheriff's Academy. I drew one handed and shot one handed while looking at the target and briefly caught a glance at the barrel of the gun when time permitted. We had revolvers then. I went down to a local creek bed outside of town, from time to time, and practiced shooting at cans and bottles until I got comfortable..."walking cans" at 20 or so feet.
I lost interest in shooting until the mid eighties, when I ran into a "situation." At about that time I met a friend trying out for the FBI and we both started on the hunt for a reliable semi-auto...meanwhile we learned to shoot using sights and using two hands. For years we practiced outdoors shooting various targets. until I "instinctively use sights."

Short story long, the two times that I presented my gun when I was carrying? No real time to see the situations happening! I went to two hand grip, "flash sight picture." alternating eyes between threat (target) and sights, and these were live moving BG's with weapons (one time knife, one time knife and gun)...not standing still paper targets at a fixed range.
I found that depending on the threat, you could easily forget about the sight in the first critical seconds of the attack.

So, it's still back to the range and practice, practice, practice...then go home, unload the weapon and practice drawing, practice drawing, practice drawing (with snap caps.)

One of these days, I'll get it right.