Since this type of holster is not in common use - I have only ever seen pictures of one - how can it have been evaluated properly? How do we know anything but that it is a different way to do a task?
In the strictest sense, you are right.
But as I said:
But that's ok. An experienced competitor or instructor can evaluate the functions that must be performed and identify the drawbacks inherent in the system without investing more than a few minutes of contemplation.
There are similarities between the motions this holster
forces you to perform and those that many neophyte shooters slip into using because they don't know better. The "down-&-scoop" motion of that draw is something that most trainers and shooting instructors watch for and are expecting to see from folks who have been practicing on their own for a little while and don't realize the inefficiencies of their technique.
It takes a little guidance and corrective criticism to get folks to develop to a better form, but once they do they're surprised at how much faster they go and how much better control they have.
If it fares poorly in all the areas which you mentioned, on what basis was that judgement made since no one, evidently, uses the things in this country?
I don't have to drink paint thinner to understand how doing so might be harmful. To really PROVE it -- you're right -- I'd better have two test subjects, one drinking water, and one drinking paint thinner and then we can study and record the effects on each. To be fair, though, I really aught to make use of a larger sample size...
On the other hand, someone who has studied biology and physiology and pathology could probably deduce from identifying the compounds in the substance and comparing their known quantities with the way the human body normally works, and make some very well educated and sound statements about whether or not the practice would be beneficial -- even without the benefit of a perfect test of that theory.
See the analogy?
I agree that a very carefully organized test, on video, with a timer, would be the most convincing possible finder of fact regarding these holsters.
But that isn't possible, and it really isn't necessary for
most knowledgeable folks to make a judgement about the drawbacks and benefits.
If that doesn't convince you, that is certainly fine. I understand and appreciate a strong habit of skepticism. Please do look into it if it interests you and if you're ever in a position to obtain test examples and can make your way up to central PA, I'd love to provide range facilities and extra volunteers and help you make the most scientific test of it we can.
The "large gross motor movement" to which you refer
...
The point being that there seems to be more than enough "gross motor movement" involved in a normal draw.
Mind you...I am not advocating one method over another. I just don't see a big difference.
I certainly understand your contention. My take on it is slightly different.
The standard 4-count draw stroke works like this:
1) Obtain firing grip
2) Draw to pectoral "retention" position -- (gun may be body-index fired at the opponent from this position)
3) Extend gun to centerline and forward to meet support hand. -- (gun may be fired at the opponent from this position)
4) Full extension -- aimed fire.
The "Spetsnaz" draw changes that to a 5- or 6- count draw stroke:
1) Obtain firing grip
2) Press down hard to full extension. (Assuming/hoping to cleanly disengage handgun from holster and chamber a round.)
2.5) Draw past the holster level...
3) ... and up to pectoral "retention" position -- (gun may be body-index fired at the opponent from this position)
4) Extend gun to centerline and forward to meet support hand. -- (gun may be fired at the opponent from this position)
5) Full extension -- aimed fire.
For a good draw stroke this can only add a step or step and a half, and that extra motion is strongly, forcefully in the wrong direction. You will have to "recover" your momentum from that motion and change direction to come back up past the holster and to your proper "Count 2" position.