Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Idiotic Arguments: Stop trying to be right & start training technique options!

Preparation is an important part of being ready to fight, and training is part and parcel of preparation. Information is critical for preparation, and arguing over stupid shit doesn’t help! What shit, you ask? They can be many in the firearms training realm, but it’s generally those subjects that pop up every so often that serve no purpose other than to confuse people or sell magazines. Most are silly, but “experts” (ex= a has been, spurt= something you do in your undershorts) argue them continually, even if they inhibit preparation and training. For many, the need to be right overrides everything, and these people will argue forever, regardless of whether anything is being accomplished. 

What I’m going to do here is take a look at a couple of these idiotic topics in hopes that we can begin to understand that such bickering solves nothing other than make some internet troll feel good about his sad and useless life. In doing so, those who are looking for a path to preparation can move forward. Critical thought will get most people past these silly debates, but some will still want to argue in an effort to raise their profile. Remember, “common sense” is poorly titled in this day and age. Sense is not common in the age of the internet…

Handgun Stopping Power

 I wrote my master’s thesis on the topic of handgun stopping power, and it proved to be a mistake. I thought I could collect shooting data from across the country, and then come to a definitive conclusion. After all, part of a thesis is to defend a research conclusion. But how do you do that when nothing seems to come together? The agencies I contacted were good at supplying data, and I actively collect shooting data until my retirement from LE. However, for every good result I collected, I also get a failure, making it hard to come to a conclusion regardless of caliber.

There are two types of incapacitation: physical and psychological. Psychological incapacitation is impossible to measure, as some people will stop with a round through the finger. Others will fight through multiple 5.56 rounds to the chest. Physical incapacitation is usually explained as violating vital organs or leaking as much blood as possible, which can certainly kill, but they don’t necessarily stop instantly. So where does this leave us?

In the laboratory we look at wound patterns in ballistic gelatin—an apples to apples comparison of potential wounding effectiveness. But gelatin isn’t human tissue. Humans aren’t a consistent, homogenous substance. Let’s disregard this and look at wound volume for each caliber. You’ll see that wound volume of the best .45 is 15–20% larger than the best 9 mm. Thus, it’s safe to say that a bigger bullet is a better bullet.

Now for the bad news… that 15–20% is not enough to make up for poor shot placement, so we still have to hit something important for our handgun round to be deemed effective. The heart and aorta are about the size of a 3 x 5 card as is the vital areas in the head. Both are protected by bone. Multiple hits to such a small target are difficult under the pandemonium of a gunfight. Thus, we must take into account the probability of a missed shot. The best hollow point round available will be useless if it impacts the wall next to our attacker. Hits are critical. If a miss happens, we must be able to get back on target quickly for a fast follow-up shot.  Try this drill…run into position quickly, plant and draw and fire multiple hits to a 3 x 5 card and then instantly move again.  Take no more than a few seconds to do this…how did you do?

In truth, we should select the  largest caliber handgun that we can control under-rapid fire, given the level of training and practice time we have available under the weather conditions and environment we’re likely to face. Once you’ve determined this, practice until you’re confident in your skill. Cute, easy to carry guns will make this more difficult so choose wisely.

Isosceles vs. Weaver

 What we are arguing here? The Weaver stance, as currently taught, is squarer to the target than in the past. Most realize that, in a fight, you’ll face your attacker, so the strongly bladed position is gone. Because we all know recoil is best controlled by leaning the upper body into the gun, all that’s being argued is whether the support arm should be bent. Doing so pulls the shooting arm back into the body like a rifle stock. The Isosceles, on the other hand, pushes the gun forward like stabbing with a spear. Both control the recoil and are good enough for fighting distances, so who cares? Many people, actually, but is it important? Some argue that, in actual combat, shooters will naturally straighten their arms, but I’ve seen plenty of dash-cam gunfights in which officers have a bent support arm. So what’s the big deal? 

The truth: You’ll do in a fight what you’ve trained yourself to accomplish, provided you’ve had more than minimal training. Past studies have shown that minimally trained police officers (40 hours in the basic academy and one to three qualifications a year with no practice in between) will square to the target, thrust their pistol forward and smash the trigger with their index finger hoping for a good hit.

What about practiced shooters? I’ve trained thousands of basic police recruits and some shoot better with the Weaver, others the Isosceles. I let them discover what works best for them. The only thing I insist is that they lock their shooting arm. Why? It’s consistent with what they’ll do when shooting with one hand, which happens more often than many realize and certainly lets the air out of the argument regarding the support arm. We must prepare officers to fight, not just shoot, because they probably won’t have the optimal shooting platform.

When using the Isosceles the locked support wrist is really where recoil is controlled…this is why the support hand thumb is forward. When shooting a Weaver, the support hand thumb is usually up which is oh as this also locks the wrist. Look at your thumb and wrist on the gun when the arm is straight, then bend the elbow DOWN (not out) and note how the wrist stays locked while pointing the thumb up. Both control recoil it’s just the Weaver transfers the mechanics from the wrist to the elbow to apply pressure to the front strap. Both work…

Digital Dexterity

 It’s a proven fact that fingers don’t possess the same level of dexterity in combat as they do when not stressed, but how “dumb” do they become? This seems to depend on what a given instructor wants his doctrine to include. I attended a school where the instructor told us we needed to grasp the slide on our pistols and manually cycle it to load, as we wouldn’t have the digital dexterity to use the slide stop lever in a fight. I can understand the argument. However, during a carbine course I attended, this same instructor told the class to reload their AR-15s by inserting the magazine, rolling the thumb up and hitting the bolt-release lever. I saw this as a discrepancy and when I asked, I was told that, “The size of the slide release on a pistol varies, but the bolt release on an AR will always be the same.” I then inquired about the dexterity needed to press a trigger, hit the magazine release button and insert a magazine into a pistol. I was told, “Proper training will prepare you to accomplish these tasks without conscious thought.” Does this make sense to you? You can hit a magazine release button without conscious thought, but not a slide release lever?

I showed him that the slide release on my pistol was substantial. (The size of the lever is certainly a factor. For example, the stock slide lock lever on a Glock would be hard to manipulate.) He responded, “You can’t be assured that you will be using your gun. You might have to pick up a gun in the middle of a fight.” But isn’t it far more likely that I’ll start and finish my fight with the gun I have on me or in my hand? “You never know,” he said, which is true, but is it likely? Should we spend our valuable training time on possible or likely? Fantasy gunfighting is all the rage (gotta love that CALL OF DUTY!) and an argument can be made for even the most- silly conclusions. Once again, common sense is rare and critical thought should be applied to which techniques you are going to spend your valuable time anchoring.  To me, the most simple techniques…the ones that require the least movement…are the ones I will focus on.

Efficiency Defined

 During a recent conversation with a well-known instructor, I was told “Just because something is faster doesn’t mean it’s more efficient.” Efficiency seems to be one of the new buzzwords in firearms training, but the meaning seems to change from school to school. The word efficient is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as the least amount of time, effort and energy expended to accomplish the desired goal. To me, this means if something is faster and still accomplishes the task, then it’s more efficient.  Truth be told, in pistol fighting, speed is usually a result of lack of unnecessary movement/motion so if something is faster there is a REAL GOOD chance it is more efficient.

On this occasion, I was taking a pistol class and was clearing malfunctions by turning the pistol sideways into my left hand (inverting the ejection port down so gravity would help clear the chamber). This allows me to grasp the slide with the heel of my hand, thumb, index and middle fingers much like grasping a rope which I believe is stronger than the ring and pinky fingers. The instructor stopped me, told me I was doing it wrong and that I should reach up and over the slide and “power stroke” it to the rear, hitting myself in the chest to ensure complete slide retraction. I have no heartburn with this technique, if you like it, but I don’t find it to be efficient as the hands are too far apart in the end. I believe my method is stronger, faster and it works with pistols of any size.

When using small guns, if you work the slide in the hand-over method, your hand covers the ejection port (something that happens with full size pistols as well), creating a stoppage or you’ll have a minimal ring/pinky finger grip on the slide. Thus, turning the gun inboard works with guns of all sizes, making it more consistent and efficient due to its increased grip potential, lack of unnecessary motion and overall speed of task, though you have the right to believe what you want in this great country or ours!

In Sum

Remember: It’s more important for a shooter to complete a given task with ease than it is for them to get all wrapped up in how it’s accomplished. Not all shooters have the same level of strength and skill, and we need to take that into account. In addition, many shooters want to save their lives and not just look cool while shooting.

Doctrine, not dogma, should be the rule of thumb in the combative application of firearms. Train someone to prevail by giving them technique options and finding what works best for their physiology instead of trying to prove who’s right.  Training is a journey of discovery everyone must take and it is unlikely we will all arrive at the end point with the same skill sets or techniques.






  1. Is anyone else annoyed by the "press check "?
    "I have inserted a full magazine into my handgun and chambered a round. I will now pull the slide back a little to see if, in fact, my handguns is actually loaded. After confirming that the handgun that I have loaded and chambered IS loaded and chambered, I will now hit the back of the slide to make sure it is all the way forward since I pulled it back to make sure it was really loaded and chambered."
    Do you REALLY not know the condition of your firearm? Does it have a bad spring? Problems feeding? Does it need some gunsmithing ? Get that thing fixed man!

    1. If a presscheck is part of your loading procedure, I don't see much of a purpose. If your gun was out of your control, I am 100% for them.

      Either way, I don't see them as a problem, unless you are chambering the same round over and over again.

  2. Nice write up!

    Pick a reasonable approach and train it enough to use at a high (or greatly improved) level of skill.

  3. Once again and again, all good stuff and observations.