Anyone read: Defensive Shooting for real life encounters?

Glamdring · January 7, 2001, 07:57 AM

It is a new book by Ralph Mroz. I will probably order it in a week or so but I am wondering if anyone has read it yet?

I have his video Extreme Close Quarter Shooting already.

Hard Ball · January 8, 2001, 01:22 PM

I have seen the video "Extreme Close Quarter Shooting" and most of the techniques that Morz advocates sem very hazardous to most shooters because they involve throwing your self backwards to the ground. I think only wwwwwell trained martial artists could execute these techniques with any prospects of success.

Glamdring · January 8, 2001, 11:09 PM

In the video Mroz doesn't really advocate anything other than the idea one should train & practice for close encounters [0-5 FEET].

With each of the techniques/tactics that Mroz covers in the video he gives the pros and cons as he sees them. He covers most of the main stream contact distance techniques: Shove & shoot, Speed Rock, Drive forward, and others.

My take on his personal favorite technique would be some type of angle into an attack...but that is a high skill technique [more suited to a martial artist than a shooter].

Mort · January 9, 2001, 03:21 AM

Defensive shooters are martial artists!

Glamdring · January 9, 2001, 11:34 AM

Erick: The terminology here is my own. Angle in attack...basically instead of moving away from an
attack, the normal reaction, you move into it but at an angle. Any hand to hand attack has a range at which it develops maximum power by stepping into an attack you mess up opponents timing and also attempt to jam their attack [ie even if they hit you they do so before maximum power is developed]. Plus you can move behind them and counter attack them from behind.

The reason this is more suited for a martial artist vs a shooter is because it is a trained reflex/movement
that is the opposite of one's natural response.

Mort: With respect, a shooter may be a martial artist but simply being a shooter doesn't make one a martial artist anymore than having a weapon makes one ready for war/combat/defense. When I use the term "martial artist" I am using it in the sense that most people do. A person that
study's & practices a hand to hand sport/art that involves physical contact. To me Tai Chi isn't a martial art unless one practices push hands [even then it isn't really a MA but can be used as such].

To be honest most, if not all, shooting schools & martial arts schools don't really teach a combatitive art.
Since they tend to focus on a very narrow aspect of combat/defense. Shooting schools usually focus on shooting a pistol, that is presented from a strong side holster, at a stationary target on command. The better ones cover mind set, & address tactics to a limited extent.

An example to illustrate point. Most people will either have kids of their own or be in charge of kids at some point in their life. Mothers often have to deal with one, two, or even three [or more] small children while shopping for groceries or doing laundry at a Laundromat, yet to the best of my knowledge none of the shooting/defense schools have ever addressed this issue. I know they would say be aware. Avoid dangerous locations, etc. But that just ignores the question.

But no matter how aware you are or how will you are armed if you have just two little kids to watch and control you would be hard pressed to defend against a car jacking.

Most shooting schools train their shooters to stand still and shoot. Or find cover and then sit still and shoot.
Clint Smith and a few other use movement a bit in their classes.

As Hardball mentioned many of the techniques that Mroz demonstrates are more than a little dangerous to practice...whenever you shoot a gun from a close to the body [ie retention position] position it is very easy to get a limb in front of the muzzle.

Aside: Ralph Mroz started out as a martial artist, not a shooter or combat shooter. He got into shooting when he admitted to himself that even against two untrained opponents his realistic chances of winning were not good [if he was unarmed], or against even a single opponent that was armed his odds were not so good.

In my experience almost all "defensive" training is of very limited utility. Because most of the time you have an enthusiast of some sort [of handgun, knife, shotgun, judo, karate, AR's, boxing, etc.] trying to teach someone that is starting from zero high or mid level techniques from their hobby. When they should be teaching novice level self defense [or higher level self defense].

Mort · January 9, 2001, 07:55 PM

Right, but by that rationale many forms of Taekwondo would also be questionable as a martial art because of their arguably non-streetable emphasis. I wholeheartedly agree with you that most shooters don't shoot like they realistically ought. However, this doesn't negate the fact that they are at least attempting to address the question.

I just don't like demarcating the two, because ideally they are part of the same concept.

Glamdring · January 10, 2001, 12:27 PM

Mort: I am not sure I follow what you are saying. "Martial arts" is an idiom. The normal usage, and meaning, of the term "martial artist" does not include people shooting guns.

Most people who shoot are exactly like most people that attend a dojo or gym. They do it for fun. If they were doing it to develope combat or defense skills they would be doing things differently [and doing different things]. Or they would if they knew the difference.

From what I have seen the best a good shooting or martial arts school does is to give you tools [ie techniques] that can be used for self defense. Kinda like if you teach someone how to use rachets and wrenches they could use those skills for auto repair but you haven't really taught them anything about being a mechanic.

Am I making sense? Or am I just babbling to myself in the corner again

Mort · January 10, 2001, 06:51 PM

Speaking in terms of idiom, you may be correct. But idiomatic usage can at times be based on ignorance; why do Japanese arts include musket shooting? In the early days of the arquebus, do you think that western men-at-arms treated firearms training differently than they did sword or lance training?

The separation of shooting and martial arts is, in my opinion, an incorrect one.

Kalvan · January 11, 2001, 03:48 PM

I got the book for Christmas (from my mother-in-law, if you can believe it) and am about half way through it. He's advocating that we should train as we actually would have to fight, pretty much as you've already said. He advocates acquiring some martial arts skills for close contact, but acknowledges that all martial arts styles tend to have the same sort of practical limitations as most shooting disciplines (IDPA for instance). So, get your martial arts training from a place that has FIST suits on the wall (means they do full-contact sparring) and try to do some simunitions type training with real guns against real people. Do IPSC and IDPA to polish certain gun-handling skills, but understand they teach you bad things - and he points out a number of those things. There's an assessment of various close quarter shooting techniques. He also talks about what kind of shoes to wear, using Croakies if you wear glasses, myths about certain holster types, etc. It's fairly thin (148 pages) and the last two chapters are written by the head of the S&W Academy. The book includes a number of different things of interest and I haven't disagreed with much of anything that I've read so far. I certainly don't think I am wasting my time by reading it. Hope that helps.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 7, 2001, 07:57 AM	#1
Glamdring Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2000 Location: MN Posts: 1,388	It is a new book by Ralph Mroz. I will probably order it in a week or so but I am wondering if anyone has read it yet? I have his video Extreme Close Quarter Shooting already.

January 8, 2001, 01:22 PM	#2
Hard Ball Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 1999 Location: California Posts: 3,925	I have seen the video "Extreme Close Quarter Shooting" and most of the techniques that Morz advocates sem very hazardous to most shooters because they involve throwing your self backwards to the ground. I think only wwwwwell trained martial artists could execute these techniques with any prospects of success.

January 8, 2001, 11:09 PM	#3
Glamdring Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2000 Location: MN Posts: 1,388	In the video Mroz doesn't really advocate anything other than the idea one should train & practice for close encounters [0-5 FEET]. With each of the techniques/tactics that Mroz covers in the video he gives the pros and cons as he sees them. He covers most of the main stream contact distance techniques: Shove & shoot, Speed Rock, Drive forward, and others. My take on his personal favorite technique would be some type of angle into an attack...but that is a high skill technique [more suited to a martial artist than a shooter].

January 9, 2001, 03:21 AM	#4
Mort Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 1998 Posts: 479	Defensive shooters are martial artists!

January 9, 2001, 11:34 AM	#5
Glamdring Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2000 Location: MN Posts: 1,388	Erick: The terminology here is my own. Angle in attack...basically instead of moving away from an attack, the normal reaction, you move into it but at an angle. Any hand to hand attack has a range at which it develops maximum power by stepping into an attack you mess up opponents timing and also attempt to jam their attack [ie even if they hit you they do so before maximum power is developed]. Plus you can move behind them and counter attack them from behind. The reason this is more suited for a martial artist vs a shooter is because it is a trained reflex/movement that is the opposite of one's natural response. Mort: With respect, a shooter may be a martial artist but simply being a shooter doesn't make one a martial artist anymore than having a weapon makes one ready for war/combat/defense. When I use the term "martial artist" I am using it in the sense that most people do. A person that study's & practices a hand to hand sport/art that involves physical contact. To me Tai Chi isn't a martial art unless one practices push hands [even then it isn't really a MA but can be used as such]. To be honest most, if not all, shooting schools & martial arts schools don't really teach a combatitive art. Since they tend to focus on a very narrow aspect of combat/defense. Shooting schools usually focus on shooting a pistol, that is presented from a strong side holster, at a stationary target on command. The better ones cover mind set, & address tactics to a limited extent. An example to illustrate point. Most people will either have kids of their own or be in charge of kids at some point in their life. Mothers often have to deal with one, two, or even three [or more] small children while shopping for groceries or doing laundry at a Laundromat, yet to the best of my knowledge none of the shooting/defense schools have ever addressed this issue. I know they would say be aware. Avoid dangerous locations, etc. But that just ignores the question. But no matter how aware you are or how will you are armed if you have just two little kids to watch and control you would be hard pressed to defend against a car jacking. Most shooting schools train their shooters to stand still and shoot. Or find cover and then sit still and shoot. Clint Smith and a few other use movement a bit in their classes. As Hardball mentioned many of the techniques that Mroz demonstrates are more than a little dangerous to practice...whenever you shoot a gun from a close to the body [ie retention position] position it is very easy to get a limb in front of the muzzle. Aside: Ralph Mroz started out as a martial artist, not a shooter or combat shooter. He got into shooting when he admitted to himself that even against two untrained opponents his realistic chances of winning were not good [if he was unarmed], or against even a single opponent that was armed his odds were not so good. In my experience almost all "defensive" training is of very limited utility. Because most of the time you have an enthusiast of some sort [of handgun, knife, shotgun, judo, karate, AR's, boxing, etc.] trying to teach someone that is starting from zero high or mid level techniques from their hobby. When they should be teaching novice level self defense [or higher level self defense].

January 9, 2001, 07:55 PM	#6
Mort Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 1998 Posts: 479	Right, but by that rationale many forms of Taekwondo would also be questionable as a martial art because of their arguably non-streetable emphasis. I wholeheartedly agree with you that most shooters don't shoot like they realistically ought. However, this doesn't negate the fact that they are at least attempting to address the question. I just don't like demarcating the two, because ideally they are part of the same concept.

January 10, 2001, 12:27 PM	#7
Glamdring Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2000 Location: MN Posts: 1,388	Mort: I am not sure I follow what you are saying. "Martial arts" is an idiom. The normal usage, and meaning, of the term "martial artist" does not include people shooting guns. Most people who shoot are exactly like most people that attend a dojo or gym. They do it for fun. If they were doing it to develope combat or defense skills they would be doing things differently [and doing different things]. Or they would if they knew the difference. From what I have seen the best a good shooting or martial arts school does is to give you tools [ie techniques] that can be used for self defense. Kinda like if you teach someone how to use rachets and wrenches they could use those skills for auto repair but you haven't really taught them anything about being a mechanic. Am I making sense? Or am I just babbling to myself in the corner again

January 10, 2001, 06:51 PM	#8
Mort Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 1998 Posts: 479	Speaking in terms of idiom, you may be correct. But idiomatic usage can at times be based on ignorance; why do Japanese arts include musket shooting? In the early days of the arquebus, do you think that western men-at-arms treated firearms training differently than they did sword or lance training? The separation of shooting and martial arts is, in my opinion, an incorrect one.

January 11, 2001, 03:48 PM	#9
Kalvan Senior Member Join Date: January 11, 2001 Location: CO Posts: 175	I got the book for Christmas (from my mother-in-law, if you can believe it) and am about half way through it. He's advocating that we should train as we actually would have to fight, pretty much as you've already said. He advocates acquiring some martial arts skills for close contact, but acknowledges that all martial arts styles tend to have the same sort of practical limitations as most shooting disciplines (IDPA for instance). So, get your martial arts training from a place that has FIST suits on the wall (means they do full-contact sparring) and try to do some simunitions type training with real guns against real people. Do IPSC and IDPA to polish certain gun-handling skills, but understand they teach you bad things - and he points out a number of those things. There's an assessment of various close quarter shooting techniques. He also talks about what kind of shoes to wear, using Croakies if you wear glasses, myths about certain holster types, etc. It's fairly thin (148 pages) and the last two chapters are written by the head of the S&W Academy. The book includes a number of different things of interest and I haven't disagreed with much of anything that I've read so far. I certainly don't think I am wasting my time by reading it. Hope that helps.