View Full Version : December

October 29, 2005, 09:03 PM
Loved the article on Gabe Saurez.

Won't be training with him. At all. Ever.

Barry in IN
October 30, 2005, 06:23 PM
I have zero desire to train under him. Still, I have to wonder why so many do.
Suarez has quite a following. That's hard to miss.
After his, um, "legal indiscrections" of recent years, which would destroy most people's reputations, I wondered how he could survive in the training world.
Instead, he thrived, and has devotees all over.

When I first saw the article, I wondered what SWAT was coming to. But I wanted to read it to see if I could tell how he got such a following.
Surely, he must be the greatest instructor who ever lived.

Apparently not. I'm shocked.
Really, I was surprised, and thought there must be something good. I still don't have any firsthand knowledge, and have to rely on the writer's word.
But if 5% is true, it's plenty.
The questionable instruction would be enough, but the safety issues are on another level.
When something goes wrong, it reflects on all of us.

For those who haven't seen the article-
After allowing numerous muzzle sweepings by students without comment or concern, Suarez stood next to a terrorist target while a student fired seven head shots into it from his Beretta.
His comment on why he does that was something like- to remember what combat was like.

I couldn't resist having a look at his forum, to see if there was anything about this article. Yes, only 14 pages worth!
I couldn't stand to read past the first six pages. Based upon those comments, the SWAT article was written by someone who was overly concerned with safety, and was only printed because everyone is jealous of Suarez.

That's fine. Let them throw money at him, and think they've found something.
Let him take their money, inflate his ego, and watch the bullets go by.

October 30, 2005, 10:48 PM
I don't know the author, but I do know Gabe. I've trained twice with him. Both times were a great experience. The first so good, I brought my wife to the second class. He's always been a class act. He corrected safety issues on the spot, in a low key manner. Not the typical in your face bs that happens at ranges. He went over range safety at the beginning of the day and after any extended breaks. i.e. lunch. If he had to correct someone for a safety during a particular exercise he would bring up the incident at a break without "shaming the person". He never mentioned names because it wasn't important who had a safety violation, but was important that it was fixed and everyone was aware so it didn't happen again. My wife had a safety and I never would have know had she not told me it was her. She neglected to decock her model 92 prior to holstering. Gabe came up behind her, asked her to slowly draw her weapon, then asked her to decock it and reholster. At the end of the iteration he told everyone to decock or put their saftey on for the 1911's before holstering. That evening on the way home she told me what she had done. She should have know better, she's been a leo and armed security for 7 years. She enjoyed his class because it wasn't about belittling you if you weren't a high speed/low drag ninja. The bottom line is simple. If you want to train with him great, if you don't want to train with him great, but don't take a magazine article as gospel. I've read plenty of magazine articles that said Auto Ordnance 1911's are crap, but mine has worked for 17 years as my CCW pistol. The only mods night sights and ambi safety. Over 35,000 rounds before I had to replace the extractor. Was it as accurate as a Wilson no, was it as pretty as a Les Baer nope, was is as reliable you bet I would say more reliable. It had 6 failure to feeds with lead reloads. Not bad for a $300 piece of crap. Take one of his classes, before you decide he's a bad trainer.

Rich Lucibella
October 30, 2005, 11:03 PM
Welcome. Sorry your first post at TFL happened to be in response to a negative training experience from someone you obviously hold in high esteem.

The piece has caused some real debate on what Pat Rogers affectionately calls the "Disinformation Cow Path". It's unfortunate, really. If you check the history at TFL you'll find that I've often defended Mr. Suarez; particularly as concerns his views regarding the effectiveness of the Lever Action for citizen defense.

Unfortunately, this latest review did not play out as a plus for Gabe. But, then, training people in two days to take on "ten crazed terrorists at the mall", is a bit of a lofty goal....."tourist trap", some have said.

Such is the nature of the industry.

October 31, 2005, 12:02 AM
Thanks for the welcome.

Yes, it a dog eat dog world. It's not just Gabe I hold in high regard. I've trained at BW and mid-south and many no name places. You always take something good away from training. I've disagreed with gabe on some things, but still enjoy his "tell it like it is" approach.

Now, just one question for you I've read on your threads in Glock Talk. You keep referring to a guy continually sweeping his leg while drawing. I've been working in armed professions for 21 years and carrying concealed the same amount of time. Could you explain to me how you draw a pistol from a concealment holster and not sweep your leg? An IWB holster is sweeping your hip not just during the draw, but the entire time you're wearing it (it sweeps a substantially more important body part if you carry appendix). Unless the holster is offset from your belt (not much of concealment holster) or you do some kind of yoga manuever draw, you will always sweep your hip or thigh when you draw. If you don't sweep your leg during the draw, you'll be sweeping the guy in the next firing lane. Not looking for an argument, just making an observation. I also thought it was interesting that your thread asking to debate Gabe that didn't draw much attention from him was posted six months before SWAT decided to do the article about Gabe's course. But, you're probably right, he wasn't sent there to do a hatchet job. As for your mall ninja comments about who attends his courses. I've personally seen and been a part of U.S. SOF teams at his courses and had friends attend his class with foreign SOF teams in the class.

I'm looking forward to more training with Gabe, BW, and Gryphon Group again in the next year. I don't hold any of them in higher regards than the other. They all have advantages and disadvantages.

Rich Lucibella
October 31, 2005, 12:08 AM
I tried but just can't do it.
Could you please edit your question to include grammatical breaks and paragraphs? You know, like you see in books or newspapers. Even like in the US SOF Op Manuals would be great.

Not a criticism, per se, but your post is just a very long run-on for me.
Thanks much-

October 31, 2005, 12:19 AM
My appologies,
I never was very good in english class. I only profess to know what training I enjoy. Not how to write for a book or magazine. I hear tell though that they got books to correct my ignorance of the english language and all it's funny puctuation.

I re-read it and could follow it. But then again, I'm use to reading my scribble.

Rich Lucibella
October 31, 2005, 05:58 AM
OK, Don, lemme slog on thru and try to ferret out the question in there.
Sweeping one's leg while drawing, I think it is.
You keep referring to a guy continually sweeping his leg while drawing. We must be reading different threads, because I can't find even one post where I stated that someone was sweeping his leg while drawing.

Of course it's impossible with many holsters to draw without the muzzle at some point covering flesh. I think that's common knowledge. There are a few trainers out there who argue that this "violation" of the Four Rules grants them license to further relax those rules in other areas. Some trainers just don't get it, I guess.

However, the issue of one shooter sweeping his leg at the course in question was not brought up in the article but (third or fourth hand) by one of the attendees thru an internet post. Apparently it was reported in the context of (improperly) employing Condition Sul, perhaps the most bastardized and misunderstood firearms technique around.

I agree with you that one can learn from any qualified instructor out there, and I've never referred to Gabe as unqualified. The writer, however, didn't feel that this particular Suarez offering was worth the price of admission. YMMV.

October 31, 2005, 11:22 AM
"The very posts here and at WarriorTalk admit that one student continued sweeping his own leg with a firearm." posted by you on Glock Talk 10-30-2005 11:30p.m.
You're correct that many people on WT talked about sweeping the leg while drawing. Nobody seemed to have issue with it except you. I wasn't there neither were you. I've been to Gabe's classes so I think I have a knowledge of his teaching style. Like I said in my first post, I've read plenty of misinformation and down right lies in gun rags for over 20 years. I've been around long enough to see a hatchet job and what you did was a hatchet job. You called Gabe out wanting a debate on an open forum in January, when that failed to get the result you wanted since he basically ignored you. You registered your writer at a class six months later and then tore the class apart. Looks like unbiased journalism to me.

Rich Lucibella
October 31, 2005, 12:09 PM
Umm, Don-
I'm trying to be polite, despite the poor attempt at baiting. But it's pretty difficult when your reading comprehension skills are as wanting as your writing composition counterparts.

Once again, slowly this time. I stated at GlockTalk:The very posts here and at WarriorTalk admit that one student continued sweeping his own leg with a firearm.Ummm, do you see the words, "while drawing" anywhere in that statement? No, you don't.

Know why? Because I wasn't referring to a student covering himself while drawing a firearm.

See the difference?

What I was referring to was a fourth hand claim by the Warrior Talk Cadre that one student admitted covering his leg (foot) in Position Sul. I didn't make that up; Aaron didn't claim that in his write-up; your colleagues did.

Now I realize that for some of the High Speed Operators on the internet, a bit-o-leg/foot covering is no big deal and I'm not surprised to see some crowds have no problem with it. But guess what? If you cover yourself during Position Sul, you are not employing Position Sul at all. You're simply pointing a gun at your own body parts while trying to look real cool with your latest and greatest, incorrectly performed retention technique. :rolleyes:

Looks like unbiased journalism to me. Thank you. We try our best.

October 31, 2005, 09:59 PM
I'll disagree with your writer and you can disagree with whoever you like. Neither of us were there. It's pretty difficult to sweep your leg in the sul position; your belly or [email protected]%$% I could buy. You're correct internet commandos and fat outa shape writers are abound. This is your house and I'll stop crapping here.

November 1, 2005, 12:26 PM
The writer of this article also left out information regarding other important sections of the class such as:

1. How to properly eat raw meat
2. How to drink the blood of your enemies
3. The proper technique for drool control while viewing Rambo movies
4. Perfecting the pseudo-spiritual "warrior ethos"


Barry in IN
November 1, 2005, 03:59 PM
Well, he did leave early.....

Rich Lucibella
November 1, 2005, 04:15 PM
Once again, he did not leave the class. He completed the entire class that he reviewed. He did leave a second class before completion, but he did not cover the training offered therein other than to state that he bailed when the instructor stood downrange while a student placed rounds on a nearby target.


Capt. Charlie
November 1, 2005, 05:35 PM
Interesting that I spotted this thread 10 minutes after finishing that article. Suarez may be the greatest thing since bubble gum, but the act of standing beside an actively engaged target strongly suggests he's not playing with a full deck. The comment "reminds me of combat" bring up visions of a scene in Apocalypse Now, and nobody in that flick was wrapped real tight either. I don't know the man; he may or may not be a good teacher; he may or may not know his stuff. Doesn't matter. I would not want any of mine training under someone with that, uh, mental malfunction, and at that point, I would have walked out as well.

Harley Quinn
November 1, 2005, 05:49 PM
I bet Ashley would have wanted a target next to him so Saurez could have shot back...Been there done it. Keeps you in the right frame of mind...

The targets were 5 feet to the right we stepped two feet to our left and let fly at 15 yds...Really:eek: Pretty heavy cajones. Young and very aggressive.

You need to invite the guy to your lease land and see how he trails those shot pigs, with a 9mm...LOL


November 1, 2005, 05:54 PM
Standing next to the target and letting the student shoot the target Has anyone read about a fellow named William Tell by chance. I don't care if its Yoda using the force to shoot that target. Unless i'm chained to it it will be a cold day in hell before that happens. I usally try to stay behind the bullets when they are moving

Rich Lucibella
November 1, 2005, 06:09 PM
Sounds like fun.
Time someone put this nonsense to rest once and for all:

Harley Quinn
November 1, 2005, 06:33 PM
I like your attitude Sir...LOL


November 1, 2005, 11:51 PM

You own a Glock... :(. I thought better of you.


:D j/k

I enjoyed the article, and I won't present my opinions on it at the time being, but I will say that I won't be standing in line to buy a ticket right now.

Barry in IN
November 2, 2005, 04:10 PM
I'm aware that he completed the first class only, and saw the early stages of another.
Incidentally, by staying until the end of the first class shows the author's dedication to getting the story- I doubt I would have made it that long.

My intent was to convey that raw meat eating, enemy blood drinking , etc must be part of the "Advanced Section" of the Walter Mitty School of Singlehandedly Fighting Off Hordes.
Gotta hold that sort of info close, ya know.

Rich Lucibella
November 2, 2005, 05:16 PM
Denny emailed me on that also, Barry.

I got the tongue-in-cheek. But with the disinformation going around that John "only stayed for 2 days of a seven day class", I couldn't pass up the chance to correct the record once again.

Sorry it was at the expense of your wry humor. :p

November 2, 2005, 05:21 PM
I set 'em up......You knock 'em down Barry!

Capt. Charlie
November 8, 2005, 07:10 PM
Just wondering how the "test" went. Any shaking hands, trouble sleeping, or flashbacks? :D

Rich Lucibella
November 8, 2005, 11:49 PM
Capt Charlie:
Currently overnighting in Steambosat Springs because I'm not flying Luci-Air out in the weather I flew in on....not even for the Downrange Drill. I guess I just don't have "The Right Stuff" ;)

Posted on GlockTalk tonight:
Back from the Wars.....almost.

Actually, it was just an Elk Hunt, but I certainly feel combat hardened now. Yesterday, we filmed the Downrange Drill with me downrange. In true Ninja spirit, I bravely refused ear muffs to get the full adrenalin rush. It absolutely blew my mind. Why I feel like a regular Snake Eater now. A true Warrior......


As soon as our Training Consultant, Rob Pincus, adds a trailer, the full video will be available.

Sneak Preview:

- If you trust The Shooter, both of you walk away asking what on earth the benefit is.

- I suspect, as has been alluded to by some here, the trick is to do the drill with either or both The Shooter or Downrange Person having reason to mistrust The Shooter's ability. That should get your blood going.

Now, raise your hands: who will admit to standing Downrange when you didn't trust The Shooter to Shoot to Miss? You get a very Special Award.....it's not actually a Purple Heart or anything like that....it resembles a Clown Nose on which is painted a child with a circle and slash, in hopes that you never procreate. :rolleyes:

- If we "fight like we train", this "drill" teaches us that we need to stand still when bullets are whizzing by. That's cutting edge stuff for sure. :eek:

From Andy Stamford:In our case (and perhaps Gabes) it was a matter of "impressing" the student with the true seriousness of the use of a firearm in self defense.Andy-
You're a Thinking Man's trainer. I've previously stated that I have no problem with your experimentation in this area. But your argument is way over the top.

If a student needs to witness this silliness to understand that firearms are dangerous weapons, they need to pack up and leave the range right now. Serious, sensible students are at work.

In short, I hope the video will demonstrate for some what a complete waste of time this latest "cutting edge" tripe really is. For the rest, consider it a data point and carry on.

David Armstrong
November 11, 2005, 03:21 PM
His comment on why he does that was something like- to remember what combat was like.
Which is rather interesting, as the self-proclaimed and annointed warrior has never been in combat, or even in the military service for that matter.

November 19, 2006, 10:43 PM
I'll be danged I should have spotted this earlier.

My thoughts on this matter is if you have not trained with Gabe Suarez you have no valid comments. I have trained with him and have read his books and find all of them to be very applicable. I have out shot military, police, swat officers, and various civilians using his tactics so they work.

I have been down range from gun fire and it woke me up fast. People have to know what they are fighing for and what to expect when they do get in a gun fight. I have grown tired of publications such as yours that rip on training that you have never been to.

I trained with Gabe 3 years ago and everyone was safe. I cant say the same for other places with big names who have had several shooting over the years. Everyone who went to the class had a great time and learned how to run their weapons fast and accurate. There were 18 cops and 3 civilians and on a side note the civilians out shot and out preformed the LEO's.

I have not read the article and at this rate I never will. I do have some other thoughts on this matter.

I tried but just can't do it.
Could you please edit your question to include grammatical breaks and paragraphs? You know, like you see in books or newspapers. Even like in the US SOF Op Manuals would be great.

Not a criticism, per se, but your post is just a very long run-on for me.
Thanks much-

This is a Chicken -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- statement to point out a mans grammatical breaks. They have nothing to do with his questions and they drip with scarcasim and distain, for a guy who has fought for your ability to publish your drivle of a magazine. I used to buy the magazine, but from this day forward I will no longer waste money on your publication. You treat people this way and expect there to be no reprocutions, you are wrong.

If you'd have posted this way and in this tone to me I would have reamed you a new ******* for your arrogant behavior. If you ban me for this great. But your cowardace behavior is reflected in you magazine articles, ads, and in your selection of what to post. I have no further intrest in your publication and will continue to train with Men and leave the speculation to your Kool-Aid drinking magazine.



Rich Lucibella
November 20, 2006, 07:15 AM
From the Forum Rules:
4) Mangling of the English language whether thru ignorance, age, sloth or intent diminishes and embarrasses each of us. Posts which are indecipherable due to inability to translate thoughts into coherent written statements will be deleted without explanation. Recidivists will be removed.
Being a Vet does not earn one a pass on basic grammar.

Are you aware you're responding to a post that is more than a year old?

November 20, 2006, 04:33 PM
WC thanks for "sticking up" for me. I didn't see it as a big issue a year ago and don't see it as an issue today. I've had more than one heated discussion here over the past year with Rich and a few others. I figure if someone is grading my grammer, then they have a pretty weak case for the real argument and press on as such. I don't hold any malice against anyone here for expressing their opinion, hell it's not an opinion, but fact that my grammer is lacking.

Thanks All,
Can we close this one now?