Chuck Taylor on Competition.

[matthew temkin]

I still submit that someone with only competition experience, who learned from those with only competition experience is not a good combination for those who go in harms way.
Now the police & military may very well have these gamers in, but hopefully they can then decide what--if anything--can be incorporated from these sportsmen.
I fully agree that combat experience is not necessary to be a good instructor --as did Applegate-- but I worry about someone without such experience who either modifies--or just plain makes up--techniques based solely on the fact that it wins in competition.
It seems that the only people who dismiss or poo-pah combat experience is those who have none.
And this, IMHO, is what Taylor was trying to convey in his article.

[7677]

Deaf,
I appreciate your reply and you actually taking a stance this issue. I do not like to paint with a broad bush and use absolutes because there are those that shoot competition and understand there is a difference between combat and competition shooting. There are those that can teach both but if you look into their background they usually have a strong background with both types of shooting. Let us never forget that every shooting is different and is based on it own unique set of circumstances so there are no one size fits all solution.

I personally do not have any problem with competition shooters teaching the fundamentals such as marksmanship skills however I they should not be teaching tactics based on competition stages.

In Applegate's case, he was taught by those which had experience and the curriculum was constantly revised by those that went into harms way and gained experience first hand. Applegate incorporated the experience he did not personally have into his curriculum by those who had it. And, the thing that is often not addressed is the mental preparation (mindset) that was given to these soldier in the House of Horrors and with other types of training.

[NRAhab]

I fully agree that combat experience is not necessary to be a good instructor --as did Applegate-- but I worry about someone without such experience who either modifies--or just plain makes up--techniques based solely on the fact that it wins in competition.

I would offer the challenge that you wouldn't see this happen, uh, anywhere. The top pros that do teach SWAT/cops/military are guys like Robbie Leatham, Todd Jarrett and Jerry Miculek, who leave the tactics to the swat guys. They're just there to teach said cops to shoot faster and with more accuracy than they ever did before, not how to properly secure a room full of hostiles.

Besides, there are just as many instructors who did a tour as a REMF and are now teaching their own, equally silly "combat proven" system; these guys are just, if not more dangerous than any pro shooter teaching, because the REMF guys are going to "fake it 'till you make it", and possibly get someone killed.

[Deaf Smith]

In Applegate's case, he was taught by those which had experience and the curriculum was constantly revised by those that went into harms way and gained experience first hand. Applegate incorporated the experience he did not personally have into his curriculum by those who had it. And, the thing that is often not addressed is the mental preparation (mindset) that was given to these soldier in the House of Horrors and with other types of training.

7677,

And Jeff Cooper, who WAS combat experienced, and who did study Applegate and Fairbrain, did get feedback from students who survived shootings (as does Tom Givens.) Something to think about.

Oh, and 7677, I've been under three grand masters, all Korean, two ex-military. One, my present one for 15 years, is an ex-ROK who was in Vietnam, in combat, and even once, when his unit was overran guarding a bridge, used a RTO handset to beat one of the NVA to death when they overran his position. He also had two people try to rob him, one with a knife. He overcame them and held one of them for the police.

Just Saturday he had us doing elevator defense. That is, defending yourself in a crowed elevator. Definatly no kicking. It was pretty interesting. Now that's the TKD I study.

[Tamara]

For what it's worth, I attended the same Todd Jarrett course as NRAhab did recently. One of the first things that Todd said to the class on Day One was something to the effect of "I've never been a soldier, and I've never been a cop. All I know how to do is shoot a pistol, and that's what I'm going to try to teach you all over the next three days. Tactics are something else entirely."

One reason that the topic of this thread is such a hot-button issue with me is that over the years, I can't count how many times I've been standing around the gun store or shooting club with friends when Marty Mallninja walks up...

Joe Blow: "Hey, Marty! We were just going to go shoot some steel; falling plates for a dollar a rack. Wanna come?"

Marty Mallninja: "No way! That stupid competition stuff just blunts your skills! Sensei Klikklikbhang says so."

Joe Blow: "Uh, we're not going to be blunting any skills, just shooting some falling plates for fun and side bets."

It's doubly funny when Joe is not only a solid club-level IPSC shooter, former NCO in the 75th Regiment, and multiple Thunder Ranch and Gunsite attendee, and you know for a fact that Marty can't hit a barn from the inside with the door closed 'cause you've seen him blazing away on the range without much danger to his B-27. But competition would "blunt his skills".

[nate45]

Todd Jarrett on pistol shooting.

Ya, he is fast and accurate, but he can't do that for 'real'.

I'm an 8 handicap in golf, but if I use my ninja golf techniques Tiger can't beat me.

What Todd teaches are sound fundamentals that are both fast and accurate. Sighted fire and the two handed grip should be the core principals.

The works of Appelgate and the rest were written before Jeff Cooper developed the modern technique. Cooper was in combat and did have to shoot for his life and felt that when it came to time saved versus consistent accuracy the flash sight picture won the day.

My own personal belief is that when push comes to shove a person will do what they have practiced.

[7677]

Nate,
Speaking of Cooper,
What was Cooper real combat experience?
What technique(s) did he use to dispatch Japanese soldiers?
I will give you a hint the technique he used is not in any Modern Technique manual.

Deaf,
My grandfather had the pleasure of meeting Cooper during WWII and he told me about most of Cooper's combat experience in WWII...Sgt take your squad out on patrol to coordinates xyz and set up a ambush. And, of course it was the NCO and enlisted that did the majority of the fighting. It hadn't changed when I was in Iraq only I was now the sgt and I was clearing bunkers instead of patrolling.

I'll state it again...the problem I have with the Cooper and the direction that MT took was the elimination of threat focused techniques and the substitution of gun only techniques in place of h2h techniques. Fighting should be a integration of all of the above techniques.

Elevator defense...my suggestion is to use the stairs as it is safer and better for you too

Tamara...it is good to hear that about Jarrett as there are some other good eggs within the competition circle.

[matthew temkin]

Nate..it is a myth that one will always do as they practiced.
Especially if what they practice goes against the body's natural instincts.
Or involves complex moor skills that fall apart under stress.
Which is why we so much one handed shooting on dash cam videos from officers who's training involves mainly two handed aimed fire.
And, may I add, failing to use the sights, as they were trained to.
Which is why learning from those with combat experience is so vital.
They know what happens and how the body reacts---and when to modify or completely toss out the book.

[Brit]

What Todd teaches are sound fundamentals that are both fast and accurate. Sighted fire and the two handed grip should be the core principals.

Nate, your quote above is a good one. And should bring forth an attack that will sound like the last 2 minutes on the floor of the stock exchange!
IE. Start shooting the instant you draw, the instant the muzzle clears leather/Zipper from the right big toe to the left testicle, etc! etc!

Now this is me speaking, I am not about to quote anybody, or fall at the feet of Col. Cooper, whom I did meet on a few occasions and my impression of him was based on one man meeting an other, he was a Gentleman, and a very genuine person.

To continue, many years ago I came to the conclusion that the training given to the gun carriers, the ones who had the side arms on their belts for “Self Defense” Police/Security/CCW holders, was down right stupid. This thought was based on watching it done, and listening to the Police Instructors lecture.

I think the closest comparison would be "You are now trained!" the trainee has just done an intense course lasting 3 days, in driving a Mini Cooper in a parking lot, oh, and yes, there were 20 other students and only one vehicle!

This fully trained professional driver would step forward; receive his Diploma, the keys to a fully loaded TRACTOR TRAILER! And map "The I 75 is that way" And off he would go.

Not one group or individual was teaching how to fight! Just to shoot! And no one was using history to define the training to meet the real threat. Dissecting all and every shootings within the areas worked, or carried in. Even the clothing was not selected for the threat, Poly plastic fibers that would burn into your flesh in a fire, dark blue or black, still around (in Florida?)

Replacing S&W mod 10s with .45 ACP 1911s, loaded with 200g semi-wad cutters, not even hollow points, that suggestion would have had you sent off to the Psychiatrist.

The excellent SOP 25? Was not yet out there, and even with the advent of that protocol, the Brass of the NYPD would not let the Firearms unit fully off the lease. At least that is what I was told.

Two hands, two arms, both eyes, flash sight picture. And sights that would jump out at you, night or day. A pistol with lots of projectiles would not hurt! “More is better, always” I said that.

[matthew temkin]

Brit..what exactly is your point?
You kinda lost me by the second paragraph...

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by matthew temkin

Nate..it is a myth that one will always do as they practiced.
Especially if what they practice goes against the body's natural instincts.
Or involves complex moor skills that fall apart under stress.
Which is why we so much one handed shooting on dash cam videos from officers who's training involves mainly two handed aimed fire.
And, may I add, failing to use the sights, as they were trained to.

This is a little disingenuous, and on more than one point:

1) "...as they were trained to." If by "trained", you mean a couple days in academy and a qualifying session once a year. If that's "trained", then I'm ready to pitch for the Yankees, 'cause I threw a ball around for the dog to fetch this morning. I'm a fairly casual hobbyist shooter, and I'll wager that I shoot almost as many rounds in any given month as the average, say, NYPD officer expends from his first patrol to his gold watch.

2) A two-handed grasp of the gun is not a particularly complicated motor skill. Besides, at least a third of any moderately serious shooter's practice should be one-handed (both weak- and strong-hand).

[David Armstrong]

I'm a fairly casual hobbyist shooter, and I'll wager that I shoot almost as many rounds in any given month as the average, say, NYPD officer expends from his first patrol to his gold watch.

I would extend that to suggest that NYPD officer shoots more rounds and gets more training in his first year than most gunowners (including CCW holders) will get in their entire lives. Thus to Matt's point..should we emphasize training folks to use the natural responses of their body that they are going to default to, or do we teach a set of skills that they will not remember and that their body fights against?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

7677,

My grandfather had the pleasure of meeting Cooper during WWII and he told me about most of Cooper's combat experience in WWII...Sgt take your squad out on patrol to coordinates xyz and set up a ambush. And, of course it was the NCO and enlisted that did the majority of the fighting. It hadn't changed when I was in Iraq only I was now the sgt and I was clearing bunkers instead of patrolling.

Great point. Being in combat means a lot of different things and other than living under imminent danger may not confer expert self defense status on anyone. Plus I believe military combat and civilian self defense to be two completely different animals.

[NRAhab]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

I would extend that to suggest that NYPD officer shoots more rounds and gets more training in his first year than most gunowners (including CCW holders) will get in their entire lives.

I would doubt that assessment. From what I can find, the qualifier for NYPD is a 50 round course of fire, although that info is kind of sketchy. What isn't sketchy is that once out of the Academy, an officer has to only qualify twice a year with his or her duty weapon, and there is no mandatory training.

Unfortunately, I don't have any statistics on what they're required to shoot during the Academy, but I would imagine that it's not a whole lot of rounds. I would be willing to go so far as to wager that during their entire time in the Academy and their first year on the job, the average (key point) NYPD officer will fire maybe 500-1000 rounds.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

NYPD training:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG717.pdf

[7677]

This is a little disingenuous, and on more than one point:

1) "...as they were trained to." If by "trained", you mean a couple days in academy and a qualifying session once a year. If that's "trained", then I'm ready to pitch for the Yankees, 'cause I threw a ball around for the dog to fetch this morning. I'm a fairly casual hobbyist shooter, and I'll wager that I shoot almost as many rounds in any given month as the average, say, NYPD officer expends from his first patrol to his gold watch.

2) A two-handed grasp of the gun is not a particularly complicated motor skill. Besides, at least a third of any moderately serious shooter's practice should be one-handed (both weak- and strong-hand).

Tamera,
I'm sorry that you feel that way, because you have pointed out exactly what Matt is talking about and as a law enforcement firearms instructor and/or officer for several agencies I agree with Matt's assessment. The training for the average officer is lacking and does not included the necessary one handed shooting and movement skills the statistics show are necessary.

There is nothing wrong with two handed shooting however in close quarters shooting situations faced by most LEOs and CCW's it is most likely they will employ a one handed shooting platform. The distance to the threat and the urgency of making the shot will determine a lot of things such as use of point shooting or signed fire, the use of your support arm to defend off the threat and even how much you will extend your weapon.

NRAhab,
Matt and I have been to Rodmans Neck and I have the utmost respect for those guys due to the number of officers they train. I'd have to say that the number of rounds the average officer fires their first year would be between 1k and 5k. Which is better then some agencies which only qualify once a year and provide no additional training.

[NRAhab]

Originally Posted by 7677

NRAhab,
Matt and I have been to Rodmans Neck and I have the utmost respect for those guys due to the number of officers they train. I'd have to say that the number of rounds the average officer fires their first year would be between 1k and 5k. Which is better then some agencies which only qualify once a year and provide no additional training.

Fair enough, but even if they shoot your hypothetical max at 5k, that's only in their first year. After that, the only mandatory rounds downrange for the average cop are still going to be 100 per year.

Meanwhile, an entry level IDPA shooter who shoots only one match a month and doesn't practice at all except for that match will shoot 100 rounds in a month just for the match. If you average that out of the course of 20 years, and assume that the IDPA shooter never gets more into the sport, then in 20 years your average NYPD cop will have burned up a mandatory 7000 rounds (20 years times 100 rounds a year + 5k in training). Meanwhile, the casual IDPA guy has burned up 24,000 rounds.

Now, I'm not knocking NYPD officers here. They working hard doing a thankless job. However, if they're only required to burn 100 rounds a year, and in so doing they don't get any weak or strong hand only practice (both of which are components of the IDPA qualifier, which btw is 90 rounds) then there is definitely something wrong with that training which should be addressed. I mean, a guy who shoots IDPA once a month will have more strong hand only practice than your average NYPD officer after shooting the IDPA qualifier course.

[7677]

NRAhab,
I agree with you and the reason why myself, Matt, and others have provided training to law enforcement agencies at no cost. However, you would be amazed how many officers won't even show up for free training.

[NRAhab]

Well, I think a lot of people have the mistaken conception that cops = gun guys, when in fact that is quite often just not the case; hence why people (read: not gun guys) are surprised when they find out cops can't shoot worth a bucket of drool.

[David Armstrong]

I would doubt that assessment. From what I can find, the qualifier for NYPD is a 50 round course of fire, although that info is kind of sketchy. What isn't sketchy is that once out of the Academy, an officer has to only qualify twice a year with his or her duty weapon, and there is no mandatory training.

Which still puts them ahead of most gunowners, including CCW holders. I note you try to support your position by using IDPA shooters as a base source of info, but that is quite misleading, as you would agree, I hope, that IDPA shooters do not represent most gun owners, including CCW holders. If that were true IDPA would have a lot more members.

I would be willing to go so far as to wager that during their entire time in the Academy and their first year on the job, the average (key point) NYPD officer will fire maybe 500-1000 rounds.

The average officer will have at least 80 hours of training and will fire at least 1000 rounds, unless my info is in error. Not many CCW folks are going to get 80 hours of training or shoot more than 1000 rounds in their life, according to all the info I've found over the years. In fact, I'd suggest the norm for CCW holders is closer to 0 rounds a year than 50 rounds a year, and no training outside of what is required to get and keep their CCW.

[Deaf Smith]

7677,

Triva question here. What rank had the highest casualty rate in the Marines in WW2? Privates, NCOS, or Lts? You think Lt.s just sit around and let the NCOs and privates do it all? In the Marines? Here is a hint.... many platoons ended up being commanded by NCOs.

Now if you read Cooper alot, once on the islands, he had to reload his Colt SSA .45 (Elmer Keith advised him to pack it instead of the 1911), as he described it, "in the rain, in the dark" and he got tired of reloading a SSA in such situations and finaly felt the military knew more about fighting handguns, and he thus went back to the 1911.

Cooper wrote about three incidences of using a handgun in combat. He didn't write much of using a rifle, but no doubt he used one.

Uh, and how many times did Applegate use one in WW2?

Also keep in mind in WW2 Cooper WAS basicly a point shooter. Even when he armed and trained operatives in the Korean War he was still that way (which is why his book, "Fighting Handguns", he showed alot of point shooting.)

It was only during the later part of Bear Lake and the leather slaps that he started formulating his MT (which is not just 'Weaver" stance, he picked up alot from others and added it to what he felt would work.) He noticed in the matches the point shooters sometimes hit, sometimes missed. Jack always hit.

Now as for H2H, Cooper was primarly interested in handgun defense. I know that at Gunsite that H2H was not pushed. He school was that of the fighting handgun. Nothing else.

However, you would be amazed how many officers won't even show up for free training.

It's not just LEOs 7677. Seen this many times with 'free' martial arts self defense.

The problem is this.

Most don't want to bother with it. Free or not. That is another thing with Cooper. He felt those willing to pay tended to be the better students than those HAVING to attend. Motivation being the key to it all. The more motivated the person, the more they will put forth to learn.

I enjoy shooting, fighting, and working out. But I know very very few who go through the effort I do. Those that do tend to have a case of TB.. That is a true believer.

[pax]

Speaking of Cooper, here's what he had to say about competition...

The editorial staff of the Southwest Pistol League magazine has come up with a curious debate about what may be the purpose of the Southwest Pistol League. Well, I do not know what the purpose is now, but I do know what it was when the league was founded, because I founded it.
The purpose of the league, when founded, was to discover, by means of open, unrestricted, diversified competition with the heavy-duty sidearm, just what weapons, what tactics, what principles, and what general equipment would serve best in a fight. I remember that on one occasion the late, great John Plahn exclaimed to me, "Jeff, the rest of us are in this just to have fun, but you are using us as a research tool!" Exactly. That was what I was doing.

It may now be that that purpose was accomplished, though that would be a very dangerous position to take. Certainly, however, the so-called "race guns" that now lead the competition have indicated that a majority of the contestants have simply lost the point. They do not know what the purpose is. That is the reason why the question has come up for debate in the periodical.

That's from Vol 3 issue 1 of his commentaries.

In the following issue (Vol 3 issue 2), he added:

In the publication of the Southwest Pistol League, which I founded so long ago, there was a recent exchange between editors regarding the purpose of the organization. I found this interesting and submitted the following letter to the editor in consideration thereof:
"I was much interested to read the editorial `Competition Notes' on the third page of No. 11 and 12 of the Journal."
"At issue is the purpose of the Southwest Pistol League - an interesting question."

"I once worked for a superb general at Quantico who posted up over the exit doorway of every office in the school complex the question, `What are you trying to do?' written in gold letters upon a scarlet background. That is truly a shocking question for the majority of the human race, which really has only a vague notion of what it is trying to do."

"I cannot say what the purpose of the Southwest Pistol League is at this time, though I certainly know what it was when I founded it. That purpose was to discover, by means of open, unrestricted, diversified, realistic competition, the best weapons, equipment and technique to fulfill the lifesaving mission of the combat pistol. (Some may remember that the original title of the organization was the Southwest Combat Pistol League, the word Combat extracted by the California Secretary of State when we became incorporated.) My thoughts, along with those of the other founders, was that only competition can develop excellence, but this is true only as long as the mode of competition reflects the purpose of the exercise. Once the goal of competition becomes simply winning, all sorts of irrelevant challenges may be substituted for relevance - as with, for example, checkers, frisbee or croquet."

"What we wanted to find out was how best to use a pistol in combat, and what the best pistol was. All of us had been previously trained by the military and/or the police and had always been faced with the problem of bringing a large number of people up to some minimum standard with the least time, trouble and expense. All you had to do in the public sector was shoot `expert,' but in competition you had to shoot better than your opponent. This kicked the lid off practical pistolcraft and turned the handgun from a rather trivial badge of office into a serious weapon."

"The revolution we created in the pursuit of that original purpose seems to have been achieved. Jack Weaver showed us how to shoot. John Plahn systematized the technique, and I explored the proper means of imparting it."

"However, as soon as competition became an end in itself, forgetting its purpose, the activity became trivialized and further progress came to a halt. This is not necessarily a disaster, since what we had learned is still there for those who wish to learn it, regardless of the bizarre impracticality that has set in. "Practical" pistol shooting certainly can be fun - every bit as much fun as impractical pistol shooting - but fun is not the purpose of the exercise. I remember once that John Plahn addressed me with some force saying, `Jeff, the rest of us are in this to have a good time, but you are using us as a research tool!' Just so, I learned what I needed to learn, as did many others, by the same process, and now we know how to use the combat pistol. The purpose has been accomplished."

Interesting history ...

pax

[nate45]

Originally Posted by Brit

Start shooting the instant you draw, the instant the muzzle clears leather/Zipper from the right big toe to the left testicle, etc! etc!

The Zipper isn't too bad a technique as long as the toe and testicle that get shot are the other guys. I'm actually very serious if you intend to start firing as soon as the pistol comes level, you better not get in too big a hurry and damn well make sure its level or it may be your foot that gets shot.

Originally Posted by Matt

Nate..it is a myth that one will always do as they practiced.
Especially if what they practice goes against the body's natural instincts.
Or involves complex moor skills that fall apart under stress.

Originally Posted by Tamara

2) A two-handed grasp of the gun is not a particularly complicated motor skill. Besides, at least a third of any moderately serious shooter's practice should be one-handed (both weak- and strong-hand).

No, Matt some people won't do what they have practiced, others will. No matter if they practiced threat focused shooting or the modern technique or both.

All people do not respond the same when confronted with life or death situations. The whole premise of your argument seems to be that all will fail and humans are incapable of keeping their wits about them and overcoming their natural instincts. I would counter by saying that the ability to do just that is what separates us from the animals and is a large part of what makes us human beings.

Originally Posted by nate45

What Todd teaches are sound fundamentals that are both fast and accurate. Sighted fire and the two handed grip should be the core principals.

Notice I don't say that one handed shooting, weak hand shooting, or threat focused shooting for that matter should be dismissed, or neglected, only that sighted, two handed fire should be the core principal. Why? Because in most situations in provides the means to make fast, accurate hits and also, you know as well as I do that when using threat focused shooting, the closer the pistol is to eye level the more accurate the shots are placed. So my belief is that before a person starts shooting the eyes out of things with his Model 39 locked against his hip like Maj. Nonte, that they learn the basic fundamentals like those that Todd Jarett teaches.

[Brit]

Nate45.

I have a legitimate excuse for being up in the O dark 30 hours (I am 73!) what's yours?

The one thing we must not forget in training people to shoot at people, the more information you attempt to pass on, solutions to a threat for instance, the KISS principle is paramount. Give a person three ways to react to a threat, you push the decision making mechanism of the brain into overdrive, quite often causing slow down, and in some cases that counter productive, in fact often fatal... FREEZE! to not react at all, as the brain spins out of control, looking for one of the many stored solutions in the memory bank.

Most of my students in my business were Revolver carrying individuals, so the training had to focus on the traditional use of that weapon, in the occupation the students worked in, IE History.

Punch draw, eye level, two hands, both eyes open, fire as hands stopped moving, or not fire, and challenge! "DON'T MOVE" Two shots as a first application, only 6 in the Revolver, plus two speed loaders on the belt.

Not much to remember, retained. And in the very few shootings, or gun pointing, and no shots fired incidents it worked 100%. Over 23 years.

[matthew temkin]

Nate..the whole premise of your post is that,

a)Natural instincts are bad.

b)Threat focused techniques are not accurate.

Wrong on both counts.
And just why would someone want to override the natural instincts to stress when it can be used in an easy to learn system that can be developed in a very short time?
And why do you believe that two handed sighted fire should be the core principal when the vast majority of armed encounters happen at very short distances?
especially when threat focused skills can give the same accuracy level?
Applegate believed in the 80-20 rule, meaning that one handed point shooting should be practiced 80% of the time and everything else 20%.
I suppose this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.