Tuesday, May 16, 2017
From Mr. Webster…
1. A manner of acting or doing; method; way:
“Modern modes of transportation.”
2.a particular type or form of something:
“Heat is a mode of motion.”
3.a designated condition or status, as for performing a task or
responding to a problem:
“A machine in the automatic mode.”
I have been teaching firearms for 35 years now. I entered the “art” as trainer for my agency’s newly formed SWAT team. Like many teams of the era, there was not a lot of background information to draw on, so we used Army field manuals, a basic course taught by the state training academy and a lot of phone calls across the nation to get started. Fortunately, we were “saved” by a Prosecutor’s Investigator who had been a Green Beret in Vietnam. This man, along with a local emergency room physician who was a gun enthusiast, got us traveling down the right path.
Command officers knew we needed a “certified” firearms instructor for the team and since I was the youngest member, I was “volunteered” to go. I liked guns, so I didn’t mind the four- week journey (a week for revolver, pistol, shotgun and rifle/submachine gun) to “instructor-hood” and as it turned out, I liked instructing. I started helping out the regular Rangemaster and as time went by, I moved away from SWAT over to more conventional law enforcement firearms instruction, which meant more focus on the handgun.
After all, the handgun always has been and always will be the primary firearm for American law enforcement. The same can be said for the armed citizen as well. While the carbine and shotgun are certainly more effective, the handgun is more portable and concealable, meaning it will be the gun available when an unexpected incident unfolds. The handgun is a reactive/reflexive style of firearm while the long gun is more responsive…the handgun will be available most of the time while the long gun will be the gun used when one has time and knows what they are responding to such as the military application of a small arm.
As I have gone through this multi-decades long journey of instruction, mostly focusing on the handgun, I have noticed that four “modes” of combative pistolcraft application and training exists and they are a result, mostly, of the background a given instructor comes from. I spent most of my adult life in law enforcement and when I started to focus on the training of armed citizens, this background “colored” how I taught the subject matter. I know realize I was partly wrong in doing so. Oh, I didn’t endanger anyone, but I could have had a more task specific focus.
What brought me to thinking about the various modes was a pistol course I took from a retired Special Operations Forces member. As a former member of a high speed, direct action unit, his standards were quite high and I was interested in seeing what he taught and why he taught it. Much to my disappointment, he never really said…it was mostly “do what I say”. We spent a sizable amount of time shooting beyond 25 yards…50, 75, 100 even out to 200 yards with semi-automatic pistols. While this is certainly doable, I could not help but question why we were spending such a large amount of time on something that was unlikely, even ill advised legally!
At first, I thought it was for marksmanship, but when I asked him about it I was told, “how long is the front hallway of a Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes? What if you have to make a shot to save your family at such a distance?” The legality of such an action…especially if it were to go astray…filled my head but I decided not to challenge. After all, it was his class and he certainly has the right to teach as he chooses. I left the class thinking deeply about what I had just experienced. After all, when I entered law enforcement in the mid-1970’s, long distance revolver shooting was emphasized but was stopped after research into armed conflict involving cops showed it seldom happened. Emphasis was placed on just the opposite…extreme close quarter engagements!
After a bit of reflection, it struck me that every instructor will teach what they know, have experienced and been taught based on their background and one is no more or less relevant than the other…its just a matter if that particular mode fits YOUR real world of work…and only you can decide that. Lets look at these varied modes:
1. Military: The military does everything they can to KILL THE ENEMY (an important distinction) at GREAT distance. It is the way it should be! If they can kill the enemy (no intelligence value, of course) in Iraq from a trailer in Nevada using a drone, then they should! Distance favors the trained shooter, so the further away one can be from an adversary when the fight breaks out, the greater advantage we (those trained) have in winning the fight. Shooting at contact distance requires no skill, just tenacity, so trying to engage far away increases survivability.
The problem arises in the fact the pistol is not designed for such long shots. With a short barrel and reduced sight radius long shots become problematic. Yes, with practice they can be made but how many folks who carry a handgun for personal security purposes possess this level of skill? Its one thing to make a 100 yard shot on the square range with little stress, but quite another while under the duress of a real gunfight with non-hostiles running through the battle space in panic, which would be the case at a large box store.
2. Law Enforcement: Unlike the military, law enforcement does not kill the enemy; they police society and thus, TAKE POEPLE INTO CUSTODY (another important distinction). Great strides are taken to arrest offenders and take them in front of a judge. Even in extreme situations like hostage rescues, the goal is to apprehend the offender, not kill. Offensive action, like a sniper shot, is avoided if at all possible and is only used if it is the final option.
Because of this arrest standard, law enforcement will always be an activity of close contact. Even in situations that do not involve arrest such as citizen contacts, those involved wish to keep the interaction as private as possible, thus close contact is required. Can you imagine the uproar if a patrol officer stood back 10 yards and yelled to an honest citizen, “HEY! THROW ME YOR INDEINTIFICATION! I DO NOT WANT TO GET TOO CLOSE UNTIL I FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE! Nope…that will not go over well with the citizenry.
Law enforcement has known for over a century that the single most dangerous moment is when the first handcuff goes on…that is when the fight will start! I have been there numerous times and it is not an enjoyable experience. Four times during my career I fought over my own gun in such situations and all were quite perilous. None ended in death because in those days, we were allowed to HIT PEOPLE HARD, something that is judged as cruel, mean and heartless in the days of the cell phone video. A punch to the throat or poke to the eyes always ended such attacks. That said, with close contact being a reality, is it any wonder why law enforcement shootings tend to be within double arms length to ten feet?
3. The Armed Citizen: A distance of six yards seems to be a continuing aspect of armed citizen confrontations. I have seen this distance so many times now, that I have started to incorporate it in my training courses. It makes sense as armed citizens ARE NOT DUTY BOUND TO APPREHEND, ARREST AND CERTALY DO NOT WISH TO KILL…THEY WANT TO REPEL AN ATTACK AND GET THE ATTACKER TO STOP (another important distinction). If the attacker flees, that s just fine.
For this reason, armed citizens create distance between them and the potential threat, distances like the length of a car, across a parking space, a living room or a public hall way…a distance in which they can converse, issue warnings but also retain a reactionary gap. Just a few steps can increase distance significantly. In many cases, their hand is on their holstered sidearm, but it has not yet been displayed. For whatever reason, the individual could not avoid the situation so they are now trying to evade by creating distance and allowing the potential attacker to move on. This is a wise move! Engaging in a deadly force situation is life changing and costly! The armed citizen is not duty bound so they should avoid or evade at all costs.
4. Felons: Their mode of thought is quite simple…THEY WISH TO COMPLETE WHATEVER CIMINAL ACTION THEY HAVE STARTED AND GET AWAY. In some cases it is violence committed in the act of another crime (robbery, theft, etc.) in others it is the act of violence itself that satisfies the offender. In either case, they wish to flee the scene once the act is completed. It should be understood that they do not see the world as you do, they do not think like you do and they were not raised as you were. DO NOT APPLY HOW YOU THINK ABOUT A PARTICULAR SITUATION TO THEM!
They are not “trained” in combative pistolcraft per se’ and do not concern themselves with “legalities”, after all they are already committing multiple crimes. Thus, if gun play is involved they will not worry about shot placement, who is hit, where their bullets go and will likely spray the area with bullets in order to assist their escape. While they may not be traditionally trained, many have been involved in gunfights...some have been shot…thus they will have NO APPREHENSION about shooting at you, your loved ones or anyone in the area. Fortunately, many choose to flee instead of shoot, but one cannot count on this…some offenders just like violence.
While you will be worried about such things as legalities and misplaced shots…your mind might be filled with them… as you deploy your handgun, they will not! Crime is their occupation, violence just a way of life.
As I wrap up this already too long blog, I want to go back to the definitions listed at the beginning. A mode is “A manner of acting or doing; method; way” and this method or way will certainly be affected by one’s background. In addition, when it comes to training, many instructors have been trained to operate it certain environments…I know I was! It makes sense, why would a war fighter train himself or herself to function as an armed citizen? It’s not their “real world of work and play”.
As we proceed through this “journey of discovery” that is training and preparation, we must all decide what our real world of work and play is and proceed accordingly. Does that mean we cannot “dabble” in military style training? Of course not, I believe we should seek training for a wide variety of sources. But when it comes building skills, mastering and anchoring same to a level of “auto pilot” (a longer process than many understand), we need to use critical thought and choose wisely…not be sucked into the world of tacti-cool and fantasy. The reality of conflict SUCKS…you don’t want to make it worse by preparing incorrectly…
Thanks for checking in!
Friday, April 7, 2017
I board the metallic tube of death for a sold out Combative Pistol course in Cresson, TX. This course sold out months ago which is most gratifying. Something else that is gratifying is the increasing interest in this "foundational" pistol course. Foundational should not be viewed as "basic", something many ill-informed combative shooters do due to their desire to be seen as "advanced". The reason I avoid the word "fundamentals" is it sends the wrong message. I use the word "essential" as the skills taught in a foundational class are just that...absolutely necessary!
For a period of years, students wanted "advanced" courses, totally ignoring Bruce Lee's admonition "advanced skills are the basics mastered!" That said, how many of us have truly ANCHORED those essential foundational skills? If the students in my classes are any indication...very few. In every class I go over the essential skills required for the lesson plan to be taught so the class does not bog down. It is surprising how many "advanced" shooters do not have a solid grasp of a true ready position (more cool looking stuff than functional stuff), a COMBAT draw, a reload, a stoppage clearance, a solid shooting platform (that allows rapid movement) and the like.
When I see a deficiency, instead of getting a "oh really...how can I improve?" I will usually get a "this is how I do it!" My response? "Yeah man, but you really suck at it! Just because it feels "right" to you does not mean it is good. Look, I can help you but only if you are willing." About 50% are willing to try something different. The rest just go on sucking. Thus, I am really happy to see a renewed interest in Combative Pistol and other foundational courses. Winning a gunfight is more about adapting than it is shooting. The person who sees the fight for what it is an adapts accordingly is the one who will PREVAIL! Survival is NOT the goal...
Adapt is defined by Mr. Webster as "to change as necessary" but that is not the whole story. What we are looking for is the person who is ADAPTIVE, which is defined as "THE ABILITY to change as necessary". THAT, my friends, is easier said than done! In order to have the ability to adapt, one has to have skills that are anchored to a level of auto pilot or what is known within the law enforcement community as "unconscious competence"...something few truly achieve. Why? Because it takes a long time and a lot of work! Its easy to go to gun school, its more difficult to return home and practice the lessons learned to a point of anchorage as this requires a lot of excellent level repetition which requires TOTAL focus on the skills being practiced. Very hard for many...
In order for a student/shooter to do this, they must understand how IMPORTANT the skill(s) are to them...if not they will not put in the time and effort. They will just have a fond memory of a good time at gun school. For some, this is enough...but not for the serious student of combative pistolcraft. The choice is up to you...
Thanks for checking in!
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Several years ago, in order to maintain my state peace office training credentials, I attended a Defensive Tactics Instructor recertification course. The focus of the program was “ground fighting.” Over the years, I have received continual training in this subject, all of it based on getting up off the ground as quickly as possible. I remember my basic academy instructor screaming at us, “Get up off the ground! You can’t fight effectively from there!” and kicking us if we dwelled too long on the ground. Well, it was a different time, but the lesson was well learned, as I remember it like it was yesterday.
Imagine my surprise when the content of the recertification was not getting up but deliberately taking your opponent down in an effort to “pin” them. It was like junior high wrestling, and I can remember the three days were a waste of time, in my opinion. Regardless of what wins fights in MMA matches, I refuse to adopt the idea that fighting to the ground is a good idea. Once on the ground, you are far less mobile than when upright, and trying to defend yourself from multiple attackers is almost impossible. Imagine trying to hold someone on the ground and then have his buddy kick you in the side of the head while you are “entangled.”
I feel even more strongly about this when firearms are involved. While there are no rules in a gunfight, there are some points to ponder. If you are not shooting to stop the threat, you should be doing one of the following: moving rapidly to cover, reloading/clearing a stoppage or just “getting out of Dodge.” It’s difficult to do any of these while lying on the ground—at least in a timeframe that will save your life.
There are several ways you can end up on the ground while engaged in armed conflict, and they will have an effect on how you proceed. One is going to the ground deliberately, such as when taking low cover or bracing the pistol for a long shot. Another is grounding unintentionally, such as tripping while moving—something that happens more often than people think when trying to shoot while moving to the rear. Keep in mind that we humans do not have eyes in the back of our heads and that trying to “walk backwards” while delivering accurate fire will eventually result with our butt overriding our feet and thus an unintentional grounding situation. The last—and most perilous—is being knocked off your feet during a close-quarters fight. How to handle any of these situations will depend on how far away your opponent(s) is when you fall, as distance equals time and time equals life. The farther away they are, the more time you have to just get up and keep moving. But if they are right on top of you, it is likely you will have to deploy your pistol from the ground and deliver fast and accurate fire. After all, once you are on the ground, you won’t be doing any cool-looking, tactical-style shooting… you’ll have to shoot your attacker quickly, accurately and without hesitation if you want to live to see another day. Nothing else will work.
While the best thing to do is to get up so you can move, getting up might not be possible due to physical capabilities or circumstance. It’s imperative, then, to learn how to deploy your pistol from a grounded position. Years ago, I was taught to bend my legs and bring them up in front of my upper torso to help protect it, which, with modern ammunition’s enhanced penetration capabilities, is a ridiculous thing to do. Rounds fired at the legs will likely pass through, but using your legs like this can help stabilize the pistol if a precision shot is needed. If time is of the essence, don’t waste it trying to fold your legs; use it to get your gun between you and the threat and deliver accurate fire. Also, keep in mind, if you take multiple rounds through the legs, getting up is (probably) out of the question, so mobility is no longer an option.
If your pistol was in your hand when you fell, then all you need to do is get it on target. If you dropped it when you hit the ground, then you have a problem—unless you know where it is. Scrambling around trying to recover it will likely result in failure, which is another reason for carrying a backup gun, as you will know where it is. And hopefully you’ll have practiced drawing it from unconventional positions. If you do start going down inadvertently, tighten your grip on the pistol, keep your finger off the trigger and ride out the fall. Once grounded, find the attacker and engage from whatever position you are in. Question: How many instructors out there tell your students, if they start to slip and fall, to just drop their gun so an involuntary discharge of the pistol does not occur? Yeah, I get it…once again range safety could be setting shooters up for failure in a real fight.
If the gun is secured in the holster, you will need to draw it and get it on target. Drawing from a strong-side belt holster is the same action whether standing, kneeling, seated or prone (belly up or down), which is why I prefer it. This is not something you can say about other carry positions. Drawing from your preferred mode of carry in two seconds or less is the standard students in my classes must achieve. While this does not seem particularly fast when standing on the square range, it becomes more problematic when lying on the ground, especially if a concealing garment is involved. The most fluid strong-side draw is accomplished by taking your shooting arm’s elbow straight to the rear, which will deliver the shooting hand to the gun without effort, removing the garment along the way. If you end up lying on your support side or belly, drawing the gun will be easy, as your shooting arm is unencumbered. If just the opposite happens, the act of drawing becomes more complicated.
In fact, the direst of grounded situations would be landing on your holstered firearm with the suspect hovering above. In this case, a rapid response will be critical, and speed will come from an economy of motion. Since it is impossible to draw the pistol while lying on it, immediately: Roll over on your back. Doing so will allow you to use your feet to fend off an attack while you draw your handgun. Remove the covering garment. If it is a closed-front garment, two hands might be needed. An open-front garment can probably be cleared with one. Once the garment is removed, secure a solid shooting grip, clear the holster and direct it toward the attacker. If you were using your feet to fend off your attacker, get them out of the way before firing so as not to shoot yourself. It will be all the more difficult to get into a standing/mobile position with a wounded leg or foot. If you have the core/abdominal strength necessary, sit upright. Once sitting, you will have a more stable shooting platform and will be halfway to a standing position. If you need to use your hands and arms to prop yourself up, they are involved in an activity other than fighting, which means you are defenseless. Physical fitness is worth the effort!
Once you have established this sequence of actions, you will be well situated to engage the threat and make sure you are safe. When possible, get to a standing position as quickly as possible. Make no mistake about, fighting from the ground places you in a position of serious disadvantage. Shoot from the ground as quickly as possible to stop the immediate threat, then get upright and look for additional threats. Being on the ground is not a death sentence provided you have trained from there and know what to do. Trying to sort it out in the middle of a fight will likely result in failure of the worst kind. Make sure you are ready, and you will be more capable of overcoming the threat. Like all written word, this article is not all-inclusive, merely some thoughts and guidelines to fighting from the ground. Each situation will be different so be prepared to ADAPT your anchored skills!
Thanks for checking in!
Thursday, March 2, 2017
verb (used with object
1.to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify:
2.to raise the value or price of
3.to make better, improve
verb (used with object)
1.to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend:
When physical changes are made to any object they are certainly a modification, I am not here to argue this. What I wish to address in this article is how the end user views what is a very personal object…the everyday carry gun. Much has been said over the years about modifying a gun to be used for personal security. Some maintain that any modifications will result in legal judgments…if not jail time…if they are made. While others totally ignore any legal implications and carry guns that border on the absurd!
I swear I once saw a student’s carry gun with an engraving on the slide of the grim reaper pulling a line of victims behind him wrapped in chains! Other such things like barrel crown messages saying “look at the dark hole and wait for the flash” are certainly ill advised. If you want to have these types of modifications on a range or “fun” gun I have no problem with it. But I would strongly warn against having them on a gun that could be wrapped up in a legal fight.
It is with this in mind, I present to you my thoughts on “modifications” and “enhancements”. This is sure to be controversial with folks arguing both ways and this will be a waste of time. Anyone who takes the time to post/type an argument to an article like this has their mind made up and it is doubtful any minds will be changed…including mine.
I have always carried (40 years now) what I prefer to view as an enhanced carry handgun. To me, modifications that were made to my guns over the years were done to make the gun perform better for me. While they may not have worked for others, that was not my concern. I never carried an issue gun, always opting to buy my own so I could enhance as I saw fit. My agency had no provisions or restrictions for changes to a personal gun.
In the revolver days, the enhancements were pretty straightforward, thing most everyone did if they cared at all about how well they shot. I had an action job performed so I could “roll” the DA trigger back without all of the glitches and catches that were very apparent in the factory action. I changed the wood bell-shaped grips to a more physiologically efficient tapered grip that followed the shape of the hand (the pinky finger is the shortest…why do the factory grips get larger at the bottom?). I even further enhanced the grip my removing all of the finger grooves except the top one so my hand could wrap as it wanted… not as the grip company thought I should.
I liked the red plastic insert on the large, wide front sight, but removed the white outline rear sight a replaced it with a flat black blade. I also had all sharp edges rounded (like on the cylinder release) so as I quickly and smartly manipulated the revolver, I did not cut my hands. This made for a carry gun that I could really shoot well! And that, my friends, is what I was trying to achieve. In my mind, these were performance enhancements not modifications…
Semi-auto pistols came upon us in 1987. My first pistol was a Smith & Wesson Model 669. I liked the size of the gun, but there were instantly a few things that had to go. First, the crunchy trigger action needed to be fixed. There was NO way I could shoot this gun to its full potential with all of the snags and catches in the action. Next, the sharp edges of the two plastic grip panels were blended to the frame to remove the sharp edges. The front and back edges of the grip frame itself were also rounded. I liked the front sight with its red line, but hated the white outline rear. I had the rear sight flattened and serrated. A carry bevel package was then added to remove all sharp edges and make it more snag resistant under clothing.
Several years later, S & W replaced the 669 with the Third Generation 6906 with Novak tritium sights. I sold the 669 for more than I paid and bought one. The one piece, wrap around grip was a big improvement, but once again the action needed smoothing. I removed the rear Novak sight and replaced it with a Trijicon rear that had a notch for one hand manipulation. The white rings around the rear tritium vials were backed out. Like before, all sharp edges were removed.
I then moved into a period of time when I carried the SIG pistol using both the P-225 and the P-228. I had both of these guns worked over by Robbie Barrkman at Robar. The grip on both guns was fine, but the trigger reach was a bit big for my smaller than average hand. Fortunately, SIG offered a short reach trigger that really helped me get the proper “trigger finger geometry” on the trigger face. Robbie smoothed the action and applied NP-3 to all of the internals and the slide assembly after he did a carry bevel package removing all sharp corners and edges.
The factory sights were replaced with Trijicon sights with the front being painted florescent orange. The one enhancement I really required was some modification to the slide lock/release level. My shooting hand thumb sat right on top of it, keeping it from locking open on the last round. My hands are too small for me to place my thumb over the support hand thumb, so I needed some type of solution. Robbie heated the lever and bent it up and then removed the excess material so my thumb sat below it. Nice!
The move to the .40 S&W by American law enforcement led me to adopt the Heckler & Koch USP Compact, a gun I still like. The grip on this gun is the best I have felt and is the standard I apply to all guns. I sent the USP-C to Robar and had them perform the same modifications as the SIG with the only different being the slide lever. On the USP, the lever is mounted in the middle of the frame so all that was required was rounding of the rear corner so my thumb did not sit on it.
This was the first gun in which forward cocking serrations were part of the enhancement process. Personally, I can take or leave them, believing it is more about hand strength than surface roughness when it comes to manipulating the slide. I have always press checked forward on the slide but never felt like I needed serrations to do this. Admittedly, I do chuckle at the people who make a serious issue out of them. I’ve seen folks come unhinged over them, screaming “I WOULD NEVER OWN A GUN WITH FORWARD COCKING SERRATIONS!” If its a good gun otherwise, I would just ignore them.
David Bowie of Bowie Tactical Concepts was just getting started about this time and he stippled the grip of my USP-C. I have been a fan of grip stippling ever since, believing it offers superior friction to anything else I have tried. If it comes back a little sharp, rub some sand paper over the surface until you achieve the grip you desire. The only real problem I had with the USP-C was reloading…it did not matter if I used my thumb of index finger I never felt like I could maintain a solid grip on the pistol when I shifted it during a reload. The European-style ambidextrous magazine release just did not work for me. It wasn’t a matter of speed…I was fast enough with it…I just did not feel like I had a solid grip and dropping the gun on a reload would be a real “game changer” in a gunfight.
While teaching an IALEFI Regional Training Course in Arizona, I stopped in to see Robbie at Robar and while talking about all things guns; I mentioned this reloading problem with the USP-C. Robbie said, “Why don’t you try a Glock?” Man, I didn’t want to shoot a Glock…they were weird…they had no hammer! Trying to come up with an excuse, I said, “the grip is too big”. Robbie looked at me and said, “I can put any shape grip on a Glock you desire” forgetting that Robar pioneered the Glock grip reduction. I was stuck, so I bought Glock 19 and shipped it to Robar. I have been carrying the G19 ever since.
My original enhanced G19 had a Robar grip reduction, trigger guard rounding and nothing else. The grip felt exactly like my USP-C! I then stated to take note of other problems. I could not reach the magazine button, which was resolved by adding a taller one. Glock factory sights are lacking, so I replaced them with a set of Ameriglo Operator sights. The slide lock/release sat right under my thumb so I cut it off which allowed it to lock open but eliminated me using it for any type of manual manipulation.
I had my Dad heat up a new factory lever and bend it straight. I filed off the excess material and put a glob of JB Weld on the end to make a small knob, which stayed out of the way of the shooting hand thumb, but allowed for manual manipulation. I used this lever until Karl Sokol of Chestnut Mountain Sports made me a custom lever to my specifications that went forward away from the shooting hand thumb. This lever served as the model for the Bullet Forward Slide Lock Lever now made by Ghost Inc. and I use to this day.
The Glock action was enhanced by adding a Ghost 3 .5 (actually 4.5 when measured in the middle of the trigger face and not the tip!) connector, which removed the connector/trigger bar “bump” which occurs when the two meet as the trigger is depressed to the rear. The trigger weight was brought back up to 5.5 to 6 pounds with the addition of Wolff 6 pound striker and trigger springs. I could have been happy with this gun until David Bowie showed me the carry bevel package he performed on his G19. While there are not many sharp surfaces on a Glock, David took the extra step and removed unnecessary metal at the corners of the slide, which gave the gun a much sleeker look. It also made it a bit more concealable which I am all for.
Today, I carry the Templar Custom Arms Handgun Combatives Package pictured above. As you have read here, the features built into this gun are from a long string of handguns I have carried over the last 40 years. The enhancements on this gun all serve a purpose FOR ME…there is nothing superfluous in my opinion. Could I do without? Sure! But I would not shoot a stock gun near as well and isn’t that the point of any enhancement? If it has no purpose, then it’s just a modification, or at least that is how I see it.
Some will say I am flirting with legal trouble by carrying such a gun, but as I have stated I have carried a enhance handgun all of my life. I have thought about it long and hard and I am prepared to articulate what I have done. “It will cost you a lot of money to articulate those changes in court!” Maybe, but at least I will be alive when I do so. My goal? To win the fight and then deal with the aftermath…this is what all of this is about, enhancements directed at my ability to prevail!
You certainly have the right to see it differently…
Thanks for checking in!
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Deliberation [dih-lib-uh-rey-shuh n] noun
1. Careful consideration before decision.
2. Formal consultation or discussion.
3. Deliberate quality; leisureliness of movement or action; slowness.
Like most shooters in their youth, every action I undertook on the training range was about speed…fast on the draw, fast trigger action, fast reloads, fast manipulations…sound familiar? Yes, it probably does, as most of us could not help ourselves when we are/were young we want to go FAST…it seems to be the natural order of things, but is it wise? After all, is not the goal of shooting to hit? Not hope we hit?
Bat Masterson was once quoted as saying the three priorities of gunfighting were (in this order) 1. Deliberation 2. Accuracy 3. Speed. His good friend and fellow Dodge City Deputy Marshal Wyatt Earp was quoted as saying “the secret to winning a gun fight is taking your time in a hurry” and “the most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the winner of gun play usually was the man who took his time.” Could not “taking your time” be viewed as a deliberate act? Something one has to make happen? Earp went on to clarify his statement, saying “Perhaps I can best describe such taking time as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man’s muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster tan thought is what I mean”.
Is speed important? Sure! But we should not let the electronic timer become our “master”, something I have seen continually over the decades. The history…over several centuries…has shown combative pistolcraft occurs close and fast, a few seconds in most cases, but at the same time it is accurate fire that ends the fight! (Unless, of course, the attacker just gives up which does happen…if only we could create a methodology to ensure this!) What is accurate? In my mind, after many years of research, its multiple hits in a short time frame to vital areas of the body, areas defined as the high chest (approximately a 6” x 10” rectangle just below the neck to include the heart, aorta, major blood vessels and spinal column), neck and head. I discussed the pelvic girdle in a previous blog which resulted in some “lively” debate, so I will let that dog lie…you may certainly believe what you wish on this topic. Fast AND combat accurate shots are necessary to end a close pistol fight, something that is often times difficult to achieve. After all, its easy to be either accurate or fast but not both at the same time and we have known for a long time the key to successful combative pistolcraft is the balance…blending actually…of speed and accuracy. Which brings us to deliberation…
As you can from the above definition, deliberation can mean different things; consideration, consultation, leisureliness of action, even slowness…slowness?! We’ve already stated that speed is important when fighting for your life so how can we possibly be slow? Remember what Wyatt Earp said? “The secret to winning a gunfight is taking your time in a hurry!” WTF??!!
Speed and accuracy…blending and balance…which and when…”slow is smooth and smooth is fast.” Smooth is fast, slow is just slow…
Deliberation occurs long before the fight is undertaken in that we must all decide what is worth fighting and dying for? What is our “line in the sand”? Oftentimes we do not get time to ponder as situations are thrust upon us with little opportunity to “observe, orient, decide and act”, we must “see and do” or we perish. In such cases, deliberation comes in the form of a combative mindset. In my old, worn out version of the Webster’s Dictionary, mindset is defined as “a previous decision to act based on reason and intellect” while combative is defined as “ready and willing to fight”. Thus, a combative mindset could reasonably be defined as “a previous decision to be ready and willing to fight”. Not eager to fight mind you, as we always run the risk of loosing, but willing to do so with great enthusiasm, if required. Doesn’t this sound like the first definition listed above… “careful consideration before decision”? A deliberate act to be sure…
Ok, the fight has begun…isn’t speed critical? Only if it does not lead to panic, via fear, which is oftentimes the result of an unexpected attack. Hell, any attack but certainly one we are not ready for. We have all seen or heard of examples of “panic fire”, where a large volley of rounds is fired in the direction of a threat with little affect. As Dennis Tueller (the Tueller Drill creator) once stated, “If you don’t think you have time to aim you certainly don’t have time to miss!” Only accurate and effective fire will stop a determined attack, which requires self-control when on the verge of panic…a deliberate act…or as Wyatt Earp described, “taking you time in a hurry”. After all, speed is not herky, jerky, spastic muscle manipulation, it is lack of unnecessary motion (smooth is fast!), something that must be trained in through a deliberate training activity and repeated, meaningful practice. It takes time, effort, energy, ammo and commitment to incorporate such self-control into our being and most will not know if they have it until they are in the fight. That said it is still worth the effort required to try and build in (anchor) such a response. Prepared will always be better than not prepared. Yes, luck is a factor but the harder I have worked, the luckier I seem to be and having faced such tests in my life, I know deliberate training and preparation works.
Fear is the single biggest factor in why people fail in armed conflict, yet we have known since the days of The Spartans that the single biggest factor in overcoming fear is confidence in our skills. Controlling fear through training, education and preparation is a deliberate act…
Formal consultation or discussion should also come before any attack occurs. Consultation through solid, effective training and quality information that has little to do with the flash and panache seen on You Tube or other so called “training” videos. Those who are serious, knowledgeable trainers already know what will work, is effective and what can be “trained in” or anchored. Rebranding, non-sensical, scientific sounding terminology or fancy titles does not change effectiveness…there are only so many ways to shoot a gun and they have all been invented. It all comes down to the application of the proven techniques and we know that simplicity and lack of unnecessary motion/action works best. When choosing a training course, choose wisely. After all, such a selection is a deliberate act. Discussion? Do so with family members, partners and those who may be involved in conflict with you before it happens so there are no surprises or complications in the fight. These things seldom “go to script” so try to eliminate as many unknowns as possible through discussion.
Yep, Bat Masterson had it right; deliberation, accuracy and speed…but is one more important than the others? It sounds to me that deliberation occurs throughout the combative process…before, during and after… and being deliberately accurate and fast in a gunfight is not the same as bulls eye shooting or just throwing rounds quickly. Deliberation is a process…a lifestyle commitment, really…as it occurs constantly and must be continually nurtured. Something to consider…
Thanks for checking in…
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Over the years, I have heard many stories as it relates to shooting someone in the pelvis. Some claim it is the "ultimate" location to shoot a person in an effort to create incapacitation, to others it is a serious mistake. Of course, these opinions are based on information these same people have received from other sources. Some come from eye witnesses, others from medical professionals that see wounds after the fact.
The most "famous" pelvic shot/wound ever recorded probably belongs to western lawman, buffalo hunter, gunfighter and legend Bat Masterson. In 1875 in Sweetwater, Texas Masterson was involved in a shootout with Corporal Melvin King (U.S.Army) involving either hard feelings over a card game or the affections of a woman, historians go both ways on the issue. I know, I know...the shooting involved liquor, gambling and a women...hard to believe those three would result in a fight, right?
Near midnight, Masterson left the Lady Gay Saloon accompanied by Mollie Brennan and walked to a near by dance hall. Masterson and Brennan sat down near the front door and began talking. Corporal King, intoxicated and angry over the night’s events (either loosing at cards or Brennan's attention to Masterson), saw the two go into the dance hall and watched them through the window before he approached the locked door. King knocked and Masterson got up to answer it. As he did, King burst into the room with a drawn revolver and a string of profanity. While stories as to exactly what happened vary, somehow Brennan found herself between the two men when King fired (whether she was trying to protect Masterson or simply trying to get out of the way is unknown), the first shot narrowly missed her and struck Masterson in the abdomen and shattered his pelvis taking him to the floor. King’s second shot hit Brennan in the chest and she crumpled to the floor. At this point, Masterson raised himself up and fired the shot that killed King. Some say Bat Masterson walked with a cane the remainder of his life due to the severity of the pelvic wound while others say he merely used it as an excuse to keep an impact weapon with him at all times...a weapon he was known to use with great effectiveness!
Its the bold sentence that is of great concern to those who question the pelvic shot. I have talked to several people over the years who have either been involved or have been witness to armed conflict in which a pelvis shot was delivered and all describe the victim of said wound go down while at the same time, this person was capable of remaining in the fight. This being the case, one must ask themselves if incapacitation is the same as lack of mobilization? Incapacitation means being unable to take action while immobilization means not being able to move...are they the same thing?
I have been looking at the issue of handgun "stopping power" for decades now and have come to the conclusion that handguns are not impressive man stoppers regardless of caliber or bullet design. While we currently have THE BEST combative handgun ammo ever designed, all the logical person must do is hold a cartridge in their hand, consider its weight and size and compare it to the mass that is the human body and it is not hard to see why such a small, light projectile will likely have limited impact on the human organism quickly. Just hold a .45 caliber projectile in front of the human chest cavity and you will see it is pretty small. In order to get any type of rapid result, it will have to hit a pretty important part of the body. The question is, is the pelvis "important"? Should it be a primary target?
In my classes, I use a simple target that highlights the upper chest cavity and head, a 6 x 14 inch rectangle that includes the center of the skull and the vital organs of the heart, aorta, major vessels and spinal column. Few dispute this area as "vital". The head can be considered controversial since handgun rounds have been known to not penetrate the skull but I, personally, discount this. I have been on the scene twice when humans have been hit in the skull by a handgun round that did not penetrate and on both occasions, the person was knocked off their feet much like a batter that is hit in the head with a baseball. I have received this same feedback from others. My concern with head shots is the lack of "back stop" to catch a round that is not well placed. The center chest has the remainder of the torso to help slow/catch a round that does not hit the center chest while a round that misses the head goes over the shoulder. I counsel my students to use the head shot for close distances where they know they can hit or for times they can take a low posture and shoot upwards. 25 to 50 yard head shots? Up to you, I guess. You might be able to do it on the square range, but the pandemonium of a real gunfight, where non-hostiles might be in your battle space, is an entirely different thing. Consider carefully...
I believe the high chest and head is a much better "strike zone" for combative pistolcraft than I do the pelvic girdle. I do not emphasize it in my classes, but I also do not take to task those instructors that do. In the end, the region of the body you will shoot for is that which is available to you when you fire your shots! We will all take what is offered to us, but if there is a hierarchy of shot placement, the pelvic girdle would be ranked below the chest and head...and least in my mind.
Thanks for checking in!
Thursday, January 12, 2017
"Your opinion does not trump my personal experience".
- Jon Willis
Hard to believe, but Jon and I were sitting in a bar. I had not seen him in a few weeks and we were catching up after the holidays. The last time we had been together it was a group of guys sitting around a campfire enjoying fine whiskey and cigars after a grilled steak dinner. Again, hard to believe...
During this outing, I had over heard Jon get into a rather "lively" discussion on tourniquets and which one was best. Jon is a Firefighter/Paramedic and I know he has used these devices on the street numerous times, so I defer to him on the topic and his choice is what I carry in my IFAK and vehicle Trauma Kit. What many people might not know is the tourniquet is debated in the TCCC crowd and its graduates like 9mm vs. .45 is in the handgun crowd.
Truth be told, I don't pay attention to this or many other debates as I have some personal experience, extensive training and I have a real good idea of what actually works. For situations that I don't, I have real world practitioners like Jon to advise me. In regards to tourniquets, I'm just glad to see the quality of tourniquet we now have! You should have seen the tourniquet I was taught to use back in the mid 80's when my SWAT team first created their own IFAK. Done at the direction of Emergency Room Physician and SWAT Doc Dr. Nicholas Pancol, my first tourniquet was merely a nylon strap with a slider buckle and locking device. It worked but it was BRUTAL to apply, hurt like a stick in the eye and probably did result in limb loss in a few hours due to it's thinness. Listening the the debate of which tourniquet is better makes me smile...hell, I would have taken ANY of them over what we had back then!
The person Jon was talking with was not a street practitioner, merely a student, though his opinion on the topic was strong. Jon tried to explain to him why he liked his tourniquet based in using it in actual blood loss emergencies on the street, but this fellow was having none of it! I'm guessing whoever taught him was an instructor he held in high regard and such a person could not be in error due to iconic status. I was amused at how easy Jon sluffed it off. When I asked him about it, he just laughed and said "I tried to talk to him but he would not listen. I don't care...anyone can do what they like...but your opinion does not trump my personal experience."
BAM! There it is...I have never heard it said better. In a time when so many people are GREATLY affected by what they see and read in the movies, video games, blogs, You Tube, Facebook, Instagram , etc. etc. we need to stop, take a deep breath and see what has actually works in crisis...you know, those stress filled events in which you are under great PRESSURE to perform...when lives are on the line...maybe YOURS...and not just what is currently popular or looks cool.
OPINION IS NOT FACT! Just because a noteworthy person says this is the way to do something does not mean we follow blindly without critical thought. I wish I had a nickel for every time I have asked a student why they are doing what they are doing or using the technique they are and I get a blank stare. "Huh? What do you mean?" they ask. "Why are you holding the gun like that?" or "Why are you doing this?" or "What are you trying to accomplish by using this technique?" I will say in response. What do I get back? "I went to a class taught by XXX and he said do this." "OK", I will say, "WHY are you using it? How does it benefit you? How does it enhance your performance?" It is distressing to see how many students do not know beyond they were told to do it by a famous person.
Look, that instructor may be right on, but the student/shooter using it should know why! It's called Critical Thought and we are all capable of it, its just that many have decided to blindly follow and not ask why something will benefit them. If you are building skills to be used to save your life or the lives of those you love and care about you should know WHY THEY WORK! You should also want to have learned them from people who have used them in crisis mode! Why? Because they can tell you what it was like to do it, where it was strong, weak and what they did to improve it for next time.
Charisma is not fact, scientific sounding, non-sensical jargon is not fact, having a great time on the range is not fact, feeling cool and looking good is not fact. The fact is if you get it wrong you could die...
Your instructor has told you that actual conflict experience is not necessary? Gee...I wonder why? What I can say is their opinion does not trump my personal experience...
Thanks for checking in...