What is John Farnam's "Interview Stance"?

[Kestrel]

I've read John Farnam making references to an "Interview Stance", apparantly taught in his classes, as a confontation strategy. Does anyone know what this is?

Also, is John Farnam a good firearms instructor? I've never been to any of his classes.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[BerettaNut92]

Your feet: One forward of the other, slightly angled to the person asking what time it is. Your feet abreast of each other make you easier to tip over.

Your paws: Offhand high to block, like scratching your chin or something. Shooting hand around waist level near your bangstick and/or sharpstick....

I think I started a thread on this some time last year and Jeff White or someone explained it better than I could.

Found it: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41552
news flash: dial-up sucks

 

[Andrew Rothman]

I have his book, The Farnam Method of Defensive Handgunning.

In the interview stance, your body is bladed so that your handgun is positioned to the rear and out of reach of a suspect who is being confronted. Your weak hand is extended up in front of your body and your strong hand is positioned so that it can index your handgun if necessary.

Assuming this position, you ask "Can I help you sir?" The interview stance immediately conveys the idea that you are aware of a threat and that you are ready to take appropriate action.

(p. 178)

I'd like to recommend the book, but this reviewer hit the nail on the head:

If anything, Farnam’s work is in desperate need of a good editor. As best I can tell, Farnam self-published the book without a professional editor and it shows. I'm not convinced that an outline was used by Farnam when he wrote, the whole book seems like a series of random thoughts. The entire book lacks organization, seems disjointed, and at times loses itself in minute details that don’t really benefit the reader. Put simply, the book does not "flow." The book would be far more useful if it were reorganized and certain chapters combined.

Read the whole detailed review at http://thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com/fa-reviews-farnamhandgun-pg1.html

 

[DMK]

Your feet: One forward of the other, slightly angled to the person asking what time it is. Your feet abreast of each other make you easier to tip over.

Is your weight on your foreward foot, rearward foot or balanced(which seems awkward to me)?

 

[M1911]

Balanced.

Think of it as a boxer's stance.

 

[PressCheck]

Been using this stance for years. Makes for a faster draw amongst other things. Didn't know it was Farnam's.

Learned it from a couple of "Cop's" that really had it together.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Great if you are plannig to ambush your attacker or for some reason expecting an assault....

The "interview" stance derives it name from the fact that Law Enforcement Officers use some version of it while they are talking to unknown subjects.... it keeps the gun away and, in one way or another, prepares the hands to move effectively.

Of course, the fact is that if someone ambushes you, you are going to flinch and react from that position, not your judo-dojo-academy-square-range ready position.

I like Mr. Farnam, but I think that he is teaching from a very old playbook. Is his interview stance better than standing around with your hands in your pocket? Yeah. Does it look ridiculous after about 4 seconds unless you ARE interviewing someone in an official capacity? Almost Certainly. The world is not a dirt berm with paper targets in front of it.

Try preparing yourself to react from a variety of "non-violent postures" (BTCMS Terminology)... arms folded (not crossed!), hands on hips, scratching your chin, adjusting your glasses, etc, etc... these are the positions that you are actually likely to be in during that "any moment" when you could need to react. Incorporate a flinch before you go to gun or block a strike and you are truly preparing yourself for surviving an attack.

 

[a random jerk]

Rob, while it's true that people should be ready to defend themselves from any position, I do think the "interview stance" has a great deal of merit. It gives a person the opportunity to fall back on some training and assume a good defensive posture. If someone was following me and I felt legitimately concerned for my safety, I don't think I'd mind looking like a dumbass if it gave me confidence and a defensive advantage.

 

[EricO]

The interview stance, as far as I was aware, has LEO origins, and accomplishes several things - it places you in more of a boxers stance where you'll have the ability to keep your balance better, it rotates the handgun mounted on your hip away from the person you're interacting with (creating distance), and one pt. I haven't seen mentioned yet. Especially for LEO's, if I was along a vehicle making contact with the driver, and got some bad "vibes," the interview stance allows the LEO to actually get a firing grip on his holstered handgun without the occupant of the car realizing it. By skipping the first step of the draw sequence, we're slightly ahead of the game. It can appear as if your hand is on or at your waist/belt but you can place your hand on your handgun if your interview stance properly places your holstered handgun to the rear of your body. A speedrock or firing from retention/pectoral position can be accomplished from a random buzzer/stimulus at approx. .50 sec from this position. Much faster than having to acquire the grip. You know the saying, "A gun in the hand is better than one holstered."

Re: Farnam. I have his rifle and shotgun book, and I enjoyed it. However, the section where he covers loading and unloading, and placing into "cruiser" ready (REM870) seems much more complicated than it needs to be.

EricO

 

[Heraclitus]

Assuming this position, you ask "Can I help you sir?"

I have always had reservations about those words. Someone on TFL suggested -- and I agree -- that this particular phrase might act like an invitation, and that in an interview preceding a potential threat one is better off saying something to the tune of "Sorry, but I can't help you," and that your gestalt alone should convey the unambiguous message that you are able and willing to defend yourself if necessary.

(Damn, that was painful. I'm typing this with only NINE thumbs, as I busted one of 'em on my van door this morning.)

:banghead:

 

[Rob Pincus]

ARJ,

Note that you described a situation where "someone was following you" ie- NOT "any moment" ...you can't live your life in any Interview Stance.....or any other stance.

 

[Tim Burke]

I have always had reservations about those words. Someone on TFL suggested -- and I agree -- that this particular phrase might act like an invitation

I believe this phrase is suggested if you have to initiate the conversation. If some guy is approaching you, you have to say something. If the guy initiates the conversation, then you can decline to get involved. What you say is not as important as projecting awareness and preparedness.

Note that you described a situation where "someone was following you" ie- NOT "any moment" ...you can't live your life in any Interview Stance.

The initial post described the interview stance as a "confontation strategy" (sic). This is meant to be the stance you take when you choose to confront someone (or are yourself confronted in a manner that doesn't require a forceful response, yet). The key to prevailing in any armed encounter is to be aware. If one is surprised and forced to respond to a close quarters ambush, catching up to the power curve will be difficult. Training to do so may be important, but that is a different skill set, one that comes into play only after you have failed to ward off the attack.