"Combat Shooting" by Massad Ayoob

[Hangingrock]

loosedhorse,the statement in its entirety.

My understanding is that Ayoob himself has never been in a lethal encounter AKA Gun Fight. His credibility is built on analytical research, theory, and methodology. Is that a fair assessment and if not what would be fair?

If you’re going to quote what I wrote do not omit the last sentence which apparently you did.That would be misleading.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you say so. To me, it would only be misleading if no one had access to your post. Taken to the extreme, I would always have to quote the entire post even if I was responding to one sentence, or one word.

But, hey: I'm a nice guy. Since you asked so nicely, I'll change my post. (Well, I guess you didn't ask, nicely or otherwise...)

 

[sidheshooter]

Not much to add, save for the fact that I found Mas to be a masterful teacher, and a great shot. My copy of his new book arrived right before a long business trip, so I have not yet cracked it, but it is on the list for tomorrow.

 

[Hangingrock]

The Ayoob book came today more or less skimmed thru the book reading an excerpt here and there.

Under Gunfighters Colonel Askins, in my opinion his superiors choose to look the other way and/or rendered tacit support or outright approval in the performance of his duties in law-enforcement and military service.

As for competition shooting inducing stress to what level may I ask? Seriously stressed out over a shooting match by what peer pressure/professional standing/bragging rights? The previously mentioned would be of little consequence compared to engaging in a life or death encounter/struggle.

In the forums I frequent very little is mentioned of the book but Ayoob himself elicits very diverse opinions from respondents’.

At some point I’ll read the book in detail.

 

[Sam1911]

As for competition shooting inducing stress to what level may I ask? Seriously stressed out over a shooting match by what peer pressure/professional standing/bragging rights? The previously mentioned would be of little consequence compared to engaging in a life or death encounter/struggle.

That's a fair point that's brought up frequently. Competition induces stress. Realistic scenario practice and training induces a higher level of stress. Sparring and mock-fighting and/or Simunitions type training induces even more. Fighting for your life against a deadly adversary will induce a level of stress that cannot be simulated.

Considering that the very great majority of shooters have experience limited to putting a few boxes of ammo through the gun on a square range every once in a while, ANY induced level of stress can be beneficial in helping to build the ability to respond well under the great pressures of self-defense.

But the greatest benefits of competition and training is not (necessarily) stress inoculation, though that COULD be a benefit of some of the highest, most intense levels, but that the participant has seen the degradation of skills that occurs when outside pressures intrude into the act of shooting, and builds hand skills that become familiar, worn-in paths which the body can follow even if the brain is temporarily going haywire from fear and adrenaline.

 

[9mmepiphany]

As for competition shooting inducing stress to what level may I ask? Seriously stressed out over a shooting match by what peer pressure/professional standing/bragging rights? The previously mentioned would be of little consequence compared to engaging in a life or death encounter/struggle.

While you are correct that the stress isn't the same, the stress of competition is very real.

What makes action pistol competition such a great test bed to validate or disprove shooting techniques is that folks will push the envelope further in competition, for that silly plastic trophy, than they would dare do when training for real life situations. Competitive shooting is where you find the limits that you'll use in a true defensive use of force

 

[threefeathers]

Again, if you want to learn from Mas himself I have 5 slots left for the MAG 40 in April.

 

[JohnKSa]

Guys who are in one gunfight, tend to obsess about the details of their gunfights to the exclusion of new TTPs that work.

A guy who wins a single gunfight could have won because he was good, because he was lucky, or maybe both. The problem is that it's hard to tell which after the fact, especially talking to the winner.

If he won because he was lucky, you're wasting your time trying to learn to gunfight from him. That's like taking a class on how to win the lottery from a previous lottery winner.

If he won because he was good, that's a little better as long as he understands and is able to convey how what he did can be used to help others win gunfights. An example of a person who could not do so was Jelly Bryce. He apparently had phenomenal reflexes and vision. He was an experienced and accomplished gunfighter. The FBI tried to model their training to match how he shot. The problem was that the trainees didn't have Bryce's natural abilities so the training wasn't nearly as effective as one would have expected given the model they were using. So they learned from the best gunfighter available at the time and it did them little good.

The bottom line is that you're far better off learning from a good teacher than from a good gunfighter if you have to pick between the two. If you can find a good teacher who is also a good gunfighter that's great--but there aren't many of them around.

 

[Hangingrock]

Last night I read pages 9 thru 26 on the subject of MINDSET which places I the reader under half way thru that chapter. Referencing (The Modern Technique of the Pistol by Gregory Morrison, Jeff Cooper Editorial Advisor) Cooper’s chapter The Combat Mind-Set is four pages in length. No criticism just the difference of authors presentation of the subject one expounds and the other adheres to the core principle of the subject.

One hundred ninety pages which translates into six or seven days of reading with pause for consideration/evaluation of the material read.

 

[easyg]

I've nothing against Ayoob, but I honestly believe that your money is better spent buying more ammo, and spending more time at the range, rather than wasting it on a book about "combat shooting".

 

[Sam1911]

I've nothing against Ayoob, but I honestly believe that your money is better spent buying more ammo, and spending more time at the range, rather than wasting it on a book about "combat shooting".

Can you expand on that a bit? Are you saying that training with an instructor is better than a book?

Or that, more literally, just buying ammo and hitting the range, however you do what you do, is more valuable than a book on technique and mindset?

 

[easyg]

Yes, and yes.

When it comes to shooting, IMO, books are not very useful.
However, I do believe that videos can be somewhat useful in teaching certain skills (malfunction drills, field stripping, detail stripping, stance, grip, etc...).
I think that it's true: a picture says a thousand words.

As for the "mindset"...
I believe books are even less useful.
I don't think that anyone can obtain a "combat mindset" from any book.
I believe that requires a "hands on" approach.


Easy

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, and yes.

When it comes to shooting, IMO, books are not very useful.

Interesting. A certain amount of training comes in the form of classroom instruction -- especially the sorts of training that Mas does. That's usually backed up with written documentation for further study, as well as whatever note-taking the students do during lectures. Seems that sort of thing can be shared in a book.

Plus, in the competition world, many highly accomplished shooters strongly recommend a series of texts by world class competitors and coaches. Like the Army Marksmanship Unit's training manual, and those by Brain Enos, Matt Burkett, Steve Anderson, Saul Kirch, and many others.

While a book can't replicate the experience that a personal coach can provide, it can be a huge step up from burning box after box of ammo in whatever imperfect practice you might create on your own.

I think that it's true: a picture says a thousand words.

Funny, a lot of books have pictures...

As for the "mindset"...
I believe books are even less useful.

Less useful than what? Nothing? Not everyone has combat experience or the desire to get it. A good instructor can help motivate the appropriate mindset, but it's still a way of thinking that is communicated through words. A book might open some of those doors in the mind. There's no way that burning a few (or hundreds of!) boxes of ammo is going to give you the right mindset.

 

[easyg]

One can read about shooting (or golf, or bowling, or surgery, etc...) all day long.
But there is just no substitution for actually doing it.

And while it's true that just sending lead down-range will not necessarily make one a better shooter, from what I've seen, the vast majority of folks do improve the more they shoot.

Less useful than what? Nothing?

Yeah.
A "combat mindset" is something you just cannot get from a book.
IMO, If one buys a book in an effort to develop a "combat mindset" then one is merely throwing their money away.

But when it comes to a "combat mindset", the real debate might be why would (or should) a civilian want to develope such a mindset?

 

[Sam1911]

One can read about shooting (or golf, or bowling, or surgery, etc...) all day long.
But there is just no substitution for actually doing it.

I don't think anyone was saying that a book replaces shooting. Merely that it can instruct, focus, and direct that shooting practice into something useful.

And while it's true that just sending lead down-range will not necessarily make one a better shooter, from what I've seen, the vast majority of folks do improve the more they shoot.

Well, that certainly makes sense. But as is so often acknowledged, practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. A book on shooting technique would seem a fine way to communicate to the shooter what they should be practicing, suggest dills and skills tests that can help them improve and measure proficiency, and in general transform what is too often a habit of square-range paper-punching or can plinking into something that begins to reflect the kind of skills one might actually need to fight with a sidearm. (Or to win a shooting match, in the case of competition.)

Not to say that hands-on instruction is not far superior in most ways, but unless your own reading comprehension (or the writer's skills) are very poor, many of the principles can be communicated in text, and can make a shooter's practice better, if not truly as good as it could be with face-to-face training.

A "combat mindset" is something you just cannot get from a book.
IMO, If one buys a book in an effort to develop a "combat mindset" then one is merely throwing their money away.

Okay, but if mindset (and shooting skill sets, apparently) cannot be communicated by written word, what do we bother to come here for? Why discuss these matters in the Competition and S,T,&T forums here at THR if we cannot learn through sharing of principle and technique written down on a page or screen?

But when it comes to a "combat mindset", the real debate might be why would (or should) a civilian want to develope such a mindset?

Well, "combat" is an overused word, like "tactical." And "combat" generally signifies the strategic goals and sworn duties of a soldier who will kill and possibly die to achieve those goals. That is not perfectly analogous to what the armed citizen is about.

Simply referring to it as a self-defense mindset might be more correct. But the armed defender has to have a strong grasp on why they carry the gun (to defend their life or that of a loved one, with lethal force if necessary), when they will use it (immediately, the moment it becomes absolutely necessary), and what it means to pull that gun (I accept that I will seriously injure and very probably end the life of another human being if that person forces me to do so or die myself). So there are a few mindset points that not everyone understands, fully comprehends, or fully accepts. A book, or a living, breathing instructor, can communicate those ideals and values to someone who is contemplating carrying a gun and help them to better understand what they must do, must not do, and why.

 

[easyg]

Okay, but if mindset (and shooting skill sets, apparently) cannot be communicated by written word, what do we bother to come here for? Why discuss these matters in the Competition and S,T,&T forums here at THR if we cannot learn through sharing of principle and technique written down on a page or screen?

We are having a conversation.
You cannot converse with a book.
With a book you cannot ask for more details, or a different explanation or clarification, nothing can be expanded upon, etc...
And all the data in a book is provided only through the editing of the author.
There are no third or forth parties to add to the discussion.
An author can simply ignore data that conflicts with his notions.

And mostly we are here to share our opinions, not necessarily facts.

 

[Sam1911]

We are having a conversation.
You cannot converse with a book.
With a book you cannot ask for more details, or a different explanation or clarification, nothing can be expanded upon, etc...

So that makes it useless? As you said, less useful than "nothing?" That seems a strange assertion. Seems like you could get SOME information from a book. Quite a bit, in fact. If you don't understand it or want more or want a second opinion, that's on you to go obtain, of course.

But we really seem to be debating that you cannot learn important things about shooting, self-defense, and or the proper mindset from a written text. And that just seems absurd.

And all the data in a book is provided only through the editing of the author.
There are no third or forth parties to add to the discussion.

There are competing voices when an instructor is teaching? Surely not, or they'll be asked to leave for detracting from the material folks have paid to hear.

An author can simply ignore data that conflicts with his notions.

And an instructor cannot? Let me assure you they do! An instructor is going to explain in a lot of detail, but in the end s/he's going to say, "Do this THIS way." If you want to get something out of the course, you do it THAT way, at least while you're receiving instruction.

And mostly we are here to share our opinions, not necessarily facts.

And how is that different from any instructor or author? All they CAN do is present their opinions and experiences.

They may indeed share a few facts (just like we do here at THR) about the law, or ballistics, or firearm function, but the majority of information you're paying for is their OPINIONS, whether delivered in person or through the written word.

How does any of this speak against books as a learning aid?

 

[easyg]

Simply referring to it as a self-defense mindset might be more correct.

I agree.

But I think the term "combat" was chosen by Ayoob (or his publisher) to target a specific market:

Some guys will skip any book that says "self defense", but they will jump at something about "combat", "SEALs", 'Special Forces", "Tactical", "Black Ops", etc....


I suppose that a book might help a novice obtain a base reference of the fundamentals of shooting.
But I still think it's a waste of money.

 

[9mmepiphany]

But when it comes to a "combat mindset", the real debate might be why would (or should) a civilian want to develope such a mindset?

Sam is doing a very good job of explaining the usefulness of of reading as a way of transferring knowledge/experience and helping readers to open their minds to new ideas. But this is such an easy question, that it deserves a direct answer.

While Combat, as well as Tactical, is an over used term, I'm pretty sure it was an editorial decision. The hard shape of the upper case "C" invokes a certain perceptional response from the viewer. The "S" in self-defense is much softer

The direct answer to your question is because the opposite of the mindset you diminish is the mindset of the victim...or prey

 

[1911Tuner]

Mindset. Oddly enough, the issue was addressed perfectly in a movie scene.

The Shootist.

"Mr. Books, I don't understand how you prevailed in so many gunfights. My group nearly equaled yours."

"Gillam...The most important thing is being willing. I've found that most men...regardless of need or cause...aren't willing. They'll blink and eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger. I won't."

 

[Sam1911]

While Combat, as well as Tactical, is an over used term, I'm pretty sure it was an editorial decision.

Probably so, and I'll add that I think it is misplaced and a little silly. But, in a way, it hearkens back to the old days when all "Practical" shooting was known as "Combat" shooting. Fof heaven's sake, they still publish Combat Handguns magazine, and it is chock full of firearms that will never see a day in a war zone.

 

[JustinJ]

A good book about shooting or other learned skills can certainly make practice more efficient. If one reads about common mistakes and becomes aware of what to look for in their own shooting they can improve much faster than by experimentation. Sure, with enough ammo anybody could figure out better ways to shoot over time but why take a longer route than necessary? An instructor is obviously even better as they will see things the shooter may not due to perspective.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Sure, with enough ammo anybody could figure out better ways to shoot over time

It has been my experience that this is a myth. They might get better at how they shoot, but they really won't get better until they are shown a better way. Jay Lim of Top Shot's Season 2 was a great example of this

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
Sure, with enough ammo anybody could figure out better ways to shoot over time

It has been my experience that this is a myth. They might get better at how they shoot, but they really won't get better until they are shown a better way. Jay Lim of Top Shot's Season 2 was a great example of this

I don't see how one could "get better at how they shoot" but "not get better". They may certainly not be able to reach their max potential on their own or without using an unreasonable amount of ammo but they can certainly improve. In my own pesonal experience of shooting my abilities made substantial improvement over time by trial and error. Reading a few good books helped me after that but there was certainly significant improvement before. For example i figured out the best way to breath purely by trial and error and found my conclusions to match what i later read. Also, some may find ways that they personally shoot better which are different from convention. Given the way shooting techniques have evolved over time and there are "experts" recomending different things it is reasonable to conclude there is no "one size fits all" method of shooting and this is what Jay Lim demonstrated.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't see how one could "get better at how they shoot" but "not get better".

You're restricted by your technique.

I'll relate it to driving. If you have a car which is capable of cornering at .5g and you keep practicing pushing it too the limits, you'll get closer and closer (better at how you drive), but you won't have the same skills needed to corner a car at 1.0g (higher level of skill)...because everything happens faster at the higher levels, while your responses to inputs remain at the lower levels.

Jay was an example of a good shooter with a limiting skill set (teacup grip)...because the RO he approached for advice told him not to change what he was doing (he was likely a better shot than the RO...who had taken that technique to the limit of it's performance envelope. He was accurate, but his shot recovery was limited by the grip he was using.

His refusal to change his technique during competition wasn't based on ego or being wedded to the technique. He felt that in the heat of competition, he wouldn't be able to utilize the newer technique to it's fullest advantage...he understood about competitive pressure and reverting to prior training. Those who critized his choice had their ego invested in the more modern technique and that is why they were so surprise at how well he was able to shoot.

To Jay's credit, he completely changed his style of shooting after the show with coaching from a couple of Grandmaster shooters