Extremely Close Quarters Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gabe Suarez

member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
30
Gents,

For your reading enjoyment. This is from a new book I'm working on. No specific title as of yet (although I have some in mind).


EXTREMELY CLOSE QUARTERS SHOOTING

Back in the early eighties, and up until the nineties, the Speed Rock, and derivatives of it were taught in shooting academies around the world. Much of the close quarters shooting question went largely unanswered. In fact, one “state-of-the-art†academy stopped their training at 3 yards. That’s as close as they trained. Period.

For those of you unfamiliar with this now-obsolete technique, I won’t get too far into it other than it had the shooter quickly “rock†the pistol out of the holster and fire as he rolled his weight backwards onto his heels.

There were other derivatives of this method, but all called for the shooter to almost throw himself back away from the target/adversary as he fired (in apparent frightful desperation). All of them were (are) extremely defensive and ground-giving (as in retreat) in nature.

I was an advocate and practitioner of the Speed Rock. I drilled it so much that I was able to speed rock a target (that is two shots) in less than 1 second! (.83). But only a fool stops learning.

Looking at it from the better-trained and more experienced perspective of today, any technique that places you in an unbalanced position. Or one which is excessively defensive in nature places you in a horrible position in relation to the adversary, giving you little option for follow up. Such methods are only viable against an unmoving, non-aggressive paper target on the square range. When we first began drilling with force on force and integrated combatives, the speed rock proved to be “stone ageâ€.

When I was developing the curriculum for Close Range Gunfighting, I was tempted to come up with a more graphic name. One that was examined and dropped was "In Your Face Gunfighting". A comical name perhaps, but descriptive of the situations that many armed private citizens find themselves in daily. Citizens become involved in gunfights because their adversaries either select them as victims, or because they have lapsed in their attentiveness and walked in on a crime in progress.

We begin this study with the understanding that avoidance strategies have failed. Now is not the time to debate anything, the only option left is to attack. There are several points to consider.

1). Extreme and overwhelming force and violence are the key to winning the fight…or at the very least being able to escape it after it begins. You will not win a fight by hiding or getting shot in the back.

2). You must move. The man who plants his feet, will find the rest of himself planted soon there after. Move. This is not hard. Picture the often seen situation at a range where a neophyte turns with a gun in hand to ask the instructor a question. Everyone moves out of he way of the muzzle. Moving is natural. Standing still is not. Use nature to your advantage and move. If you move first and then shoot, or if you shoot as you move, or whatever, it matters not as long as you do both and practice it often.

3). With #1 in mind, be generous with your ammunition. Remember that the man (men) in front of you is trying to kill you or your important ones. Have no pity for them. Forget about shooting twice; shoot them to the ground.

4). Nobody that I know has ever been robbed or kidnapped, or raped from across the street. These events are often close. Real close. Bad breath distance. Here, you will not use a Weaver, Isosceles, or IPSC stance. Here you will smash your adversary in the face with your fist and shoot the heck out of him with your pistol indexed against your ribcage. Then either run right over him with gunfire and hiking boots and escape, or break contact at a rearward angle while firing and escape. Ugly business, but no one said gunfights were pretty.

5). Be fight focussed not gun focussed. If you run out of ammo, or experience a stoppage, smash him in his mouth or throat with the pistol and finish the fight. If the gun stops, close and strike hard, then break contact. You can drill this on the range with a Slide Locked Gun. On recognizing the stoppage, execute a Muzzle Thrust (making a loud aggressive and warlike sound as you do so), Drop-Back to an angle, fix the problem with the gun and fire several shots.

6). You must know the time to go to guns, and the time to use your fists. Trying to outdraw a drawn gun (while carrying concealed not in a bikini rig with a special gun) will not bring success. Using your hands to foul the adversary’s draw, or make him think about his crushed nose, while you get your own gun out is the formula for success.

Close Range Gunfighting is ugly, close, dangerous, in-your-face, sudden death, business that is best avoided, but if cannot be avoided it must be jumped into with disregard for everything except pure animal violence as expressed through the muzzle of a pistol.

***
 
Interesting topic.

I sometimes wonder, at such close range, which is the better pistol - auto or revolver. When pressed against the assailant's body an auto may not fully cycle after firing the first shot. Then some might argue that a BG could grab the cylinder of a revolver and prevent it from cocking.

How would this be addressed in a car seat scenario? Some LEO's have lost their lives battling prisoners they were transporting - I believe one recent case occurred within NYPD.

I don't want to get into a debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't know the answer.

It would be interesting to see how this topic pans out.
 
While we're talking about ECB, in all the skuls I've been to, I've always wanted to learn how to train for the threat being right on top of you. I know there are limitations to the square range, however since a lot of fight involve flesh on flesh fighting I've always wanted to see it addressed and how to practice this (assuming weapon is out or how to draw if eye pokes, et al aren't working).

Hope your book goes well, Gabe.:)
 
Now, here is a man who knows how to fight! Very impressive to have an instructor not get caught in the tunnel vision of their own little world. Well, maybe I just like hearing someone with more experience than me say what I like to hear - either way, well done.

Read a few of your books and enjoy being on your web list.

I see you are out of Prescott (must be the best defended city in the world by this point with all of you big names up there) - do any training locally in AZ?
 
Drifting Fate,

Thanks for the kind words. Az is definitely God's country. I'm actually looking a small piece of land near town for...perhaps a little private type facility. If it works out, and if we can round up rthe necessary $$...Who knows.

Cheers,
 
Hi Gabe,

Interesting topic.

Questions:

Where do you suggest the weak hand/arm be for EQC confrontation? Up and out as in standard retention/defensive posture? Weak hand placed against sternum? I have recently learned the elbow-out at horizontal maneuver and think this may be quite effective.

What level would you practice drawing your pistol for EQC? Hip height as in original speed rock, or up to pectoral level for better shot placement at COM/vital organs?

Thanks.
 
CWL Question: "Where do you suggest the weak hand/arm be for EQC confrontation? Up and out as in standard retention/defensive posture? Weak hand placed against sternum? I have recently learned the elbow-out at horizontal maneuver and think this may be quite effective.

Answer: It depends on the situation. The support hand needs to be doing something more than just getting out of the way (as in the hand flat on the sternum as is taught in many courses). As a rule of thumb, the support hand is blocking, striking, moving an adversary, etc. on the high line. That is at or above the line of the shoulders (in general). The pistol is aimed/pointed low. The first few shots will be to the lowr body. That's ok as they will be followed up.

CWL Question: "What level would you practice drawing your pistol for EQC? Hip height as in original speed rock, or up to pectoral level for better shot placement at COM/vital organs?"

See answer above. The entire dril is smash-shoot a burst-push adversary back and bring gun to standard firing postion as you move. I tried to attach a photo taken of me in Central America demonstrating this. I hope it comes through.

Cheers,


Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA, Inc.
http://www.suarezinternational.com
 

Attachments

  • costaricacqb.jpg
    costaricacqb.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 274
Mr. Suarez,

I'd like to take this time to thank you for contributing here.

All things aside, we are better off having your input here.

Erik

---

As for your take on extremely close quarters shooting, I like it.
 
You don't know you have till it's gone

I'd like to take this time to thank you for contributing here.


It has always amazed me, when people flame the very few professionals that are willing to take the time to teach us, FOR FREE! Take a look at what has happened at some of the other forums. The professionals input have declined dramatically due to trolling and flaming.

Due to a few beligerant jackasses, we all suffer.

If you don't like what is being given away, do US ALL a favor and pack your :cuss: and get the :cuss: out of here.

Yeah, I feel better now.
 
This is the reason I teach and promote the CAR Center Axis Relock System. See Sabretactical.com. You body is a computer. To understand what kind of programs to run you need to understand your machine. You can not teach gun fighting without teaching fighting. If you are at arms distance from the enemy and he pulls a blade from his waistband and the first thing you do is go for your gun you will get sliced to pieces. If you trap the knife close to his or your body you will have some room to fight. Everyone says gain distance. In many CQB enviroment there is distance to gain. You will have to fight. Using CAR the pistol is locked close to your body and the off hand can be used to defend or distract.
 
Gabe

Just e-mailed CT your post. If he responds; I'll post it

OBTW - I would go for the "take away" at close distances.
 
Appreciate your input, Gabe. You are the only pro who I've read on the Internet, other than the late Mr. Darell Mullroy, who sounds like they have some common sense and can pass it on with out a lot of fanfare. When you are fighting had to hand, all the "combat" techniques taught in IPSC and IDPA prove worthless, imho. You have to prove tougher and more willing to maim than the opposition. the fact that you have a gun gives you an advantage but you need to have the other fighting skills, too. Thanks!
 
Big G, Press Check, Sweatnbullets, and Erik,

Thanks for all the kind words. My goal is to advance the art by teaching. I'm happy my writing is helping.

Press Check,

Be sure you tell CT I came to his aid against a troll in another post, and not just that I was bad-mouthing his techniques;) .

I'm sure he'll disagree with me re the Speed Rock (after all its his invention), :banghead:

Nonetheless, I stand by my comments about it
("Looking at it from the better-trained and more experienced perspective of today, any technique that places you in an unbalanced position. Or one which is excessively defensive in nature places you in a horrible position in relation to the adversary, giving you little option for follow up. Such methods are only viable against an unmoving, non-aggressive paper target on the square range. When we first began drilling with force on force and integrated combatives, the speed rock proved to be “stone ageâ€).


:evil:
 
Thanks for contributing! This rocks to see a firearms pro giving free advice online. :D
 
I'm curious about the following comment from your original post:

"Looking at it from the better-trained and more experienced perspective of today, any technique that places you in an unbalanced position. Or one which is excessively defensive in nature places you in a horrible position in relation to the adversary, giving you little option for follow up"

What about the fact that in any real ambush you are going to be in an unbalanced position that will be defensive in nature.

Practicing only "on-balance techniques" seems like the all-too-common martial arts phenomenon of black belts who've never trained against a resisting adversary. If you always practice for the on-balance situation, your training is for crap when you're truly surprised against a truly aggressive attacker. IMO, any technique which is not only applicable when you are off-balance, but actually integrates the natural reaction to a CQ attack (covering up and pulling back), should not be discarded.

While I'm a big fan of, and teach, the idea that there are times when you are too close/surprised to go to gun, when it is time to go to gun in those situations, the speed rock is a viable response and training to draw while on your heels and off balance is nothing but a good idea.

Be Careful.
 
I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

You will not necessarily be off balance in an ambush, but why train with a technique that will put you off balance and static after the attack starts? And, I am NOT bad mouthing Chuck Taylor here, he was a pioneer and is a great teacher, I just think the speed rock has been surpassed with time and research.

You will react as you train. Train to clench up and pull back in surprise? You will. Train to charge, take back the element of surprise in the first few microseconds, and tear your opponent into little, bloody pieces, you will.

The only real way to be physically off balanced by an ambush (if you are starting balanced, and any martial artist should ALWAYS be in balance - and gun fighting is the original American martial art) is if the ambush consists of tackling you to the ground or grappling in some way. In which case, that's not the time or place for a speed rock, either.

By all means, train to be off-balance as the result of an attack or simply a brain fade on your own part. Ignore no possibilities, but training for speed and agression, attacking with or without a weapon, only improves your chances in such a situation, not reduces it.
 
Drifting Fate,

You literally took the words out of my mouth. Nice job.

"Practicing only "on-balance techniques" seems like the all-too-common martial arts phenomenon of black belts who've never trained against a resisting adversary. "

All the more reason gents, why leaving the square range and getting into Interactive Training is so important. With this type of training, unless the speed rocker starts the fight, I will be all over him like a cheap suit before he can say "Diligentis-Vis-Celeritas"!

And even if he gets his gun out and working, before I attack, who is to say he would not miss as I deflect his pistol off to the side and smash his jaw with my elbow? What then? Fall down and experience the "head bounce" phenomena, as a pair of GSG9 boots dance a jig on his face? On the sqaure range, targets are very compliant. Not so with a live, breathing man who ain't gonna cooperate with the sensei. As a range demonstration technique the speed rock is very spectacular. As a combat method, it lacks of a combative perspective. The methods of applying the pistol in these environments should be aggressive and have a forward based attitude, not a rocked back "already falling-down" attitude.

Showing the drawbacks of the Speed Rock as opposed to more modern and combat applicabel techniques is easy with an airsoft pistol.
 
Sorry guys... all due respect... but plenty of research has been done on Flinch Response and real reactions to aggressive CQ attacks. Regardless of how or what you train you body is going to have a sub-concious reaction to any stimulus that is introduced suddenly and in close proximity. Have you ever seen a dash-cam video that showed a trained officer responding to a real ambush with academy techniques? No, you see flinches and covering up. What about sports... have you ever seen a batter dodge an inside pitch and swat it away with his bat? No, they pull in, flinch and turn away. Examples abound. BTCMS (www.tonyblauer.com) has a done a bunch of research as it applies to CQB, but there are documented neuroligical studies as well. The Flinch response is generated instinctually... muscle memory and training will not overcome it.
If you want the actual references to the studies I'll get them to you. If you actually do have any dash-cam videos of trained responses being used to successfully defend against a truly aggressive ambush, I'd love to see them.
I'm not saying that the Speed-Rock (or any other technique) is the best... quite to the contrary, I'm saying that any technique is going to be for crap when you are truly surprised. The key is getting back on-balance and that might mean fighting from an off-balance situation.
 
The key is getting back on-balance
What will be faster getting back on balance; a) dropping your center of gravity, squaring your stance, and leaning into the threat, or b) throwing ones upper body backwards?
and that might mean fighting from an off-balance situation.
While learning to fight off-balance is probably a worthwhile skill, I don't think the speed rock does much to teach it. I have serious doubts that it can be taught on the square range at all.
 
El Tejon,

I've been playing around a lot with sims and Airsoft at grappling range and in weapon rentention/disarm drills. It's been tough to find a happy medium between realistic drills and adequate safety gear. Helmets come off too often and many "training suits" are just too bulky to allow realistic movement.

Tim,

I think the problem is timing. I'm not saying you should "rock back" after you are engaged, I'm saying that you will be off balance (whether that means knocked back, rocked back or whatever doesn't matter.) and techniques like the speed-rock teach you to draw and fire effectively while you are in a position other than "lower center of gravity, weight forward" which we practice all the time for when we are in control.
Again, though, don't let the speed-rock itself be a lightning rod here, my issue is training to fight off-balance vs always wanting to be on-balance when we engage.

-----

Shooting/drawing/weapon retention and all other weapons related skills are entirely different when you are falling, rolling, tripping or recoiling in fear and shock (oops, we are supposed to admit that, are we? ;) ). Practicing them requires a realistic environment and most ranges and even "shoot-houses" (empty cinderblock, tire or railroad tie shells :() don't offer that.

Over the past few years I've seen more and more LE shooting programs integrate shooting from the car or exiting the car while under ambush... maybe the next big push of Reality Based Training to hit will be shooting while off-balance in a realistic environment.
 
Press Check,

"Be sure you tell CT I came to his aid against a troll in another post, and not just that I was bad-mouthing his techniques" .

"I'm sure he'll disagree with me re the Speed Rock (after all its his invention)",

"Nonetheless, I stand by my comments about it
("Looking at it from the better-trained and more experienced perspective of today, any technique that places you in an unbalanced position. Or one which is excessively defensive in nature places you in a horrible position in relation to the adversary, giving you little option for follow up. Such methods are only viable against an unmoving, non-aggressive paper target on the square range. When we first began drilling with force on force and integrated combatives, the speed rock proved to be “stone ageâ€)".
_________________________________________________________

To paraphrase Chuck Taylor, who has been thru four Wars, and countless Operations around the World -

1. The technique as I teach it HAS IN FACT BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY SEVERAL TIMES and the person using it was unharmed. It worked perfectly because it was executed properly and in a situation for which it was intended.

2. At no time have I ever told students to use it in preference to physical techniques. What I always tell them is that they need a firearm-oriented response to a nightmare situation and since it was a shooting class, we would use the firearm-oriented response.

3. I spent considerable time discussing the situation in which a speedrock might be used. Obviously, both Suarez and some of the other posters have conveniently forgotten the fact in order to criticize.

4. I also said from the outset that one must decide whether or not to use physical techniques or the weapon and that it many instances it was a better idea, particularly if you were skilled in hand to hand combat. At no time did I state that one should automatically use it in preference to physical methods. It is an extreme emergency technique used only if a deadly weapon had to be used and there was no room to gain standoff distance.

5. The location of the weapon back and above the holster is the most difficult place for the attacker to reach. That Suarez and other posters think they can get to it as easily as they do indicates that they don't understand the correct purpose or methodology of the maneuver.
______________________________________________________

In Ancient Greece


In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was well known for his wisdom.

One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who said
excitedly, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your
students?"

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before telling me anything I'd like
you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."

"Triple filter?"

"That's right," Socrates continued "Before you talk to me about my
student, it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you're
going to say.. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure
that what you are about to tell me is true?"

"No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it and ..."

"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not.
Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are
about to tell me about my student something good?"

"No, on the contrary ..."

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, but
you're not certain it's true. You may still pass the test though, because
there's one filter left: the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to
tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"

"No, not really."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither is
neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?"

This is why Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
 
There is a huge difference in working from an off-balance position and purposely contorting your body into an off-balance position and pretending that it is an effective response to interpersonal aggression.

Tony Blauer has done an immense amount of research on human reaction to startle and his SPEAR system is outstanding. I recommend that anyone interested in developing defensive skills check out his site and articles, particularly his article on "presumed compliance".

Integrating unarmed skills and responses into your gun skills is mandatory in today's world if you hope to have a realistic and versatile defensive skillset.

The speedrock is not part of my skillset, simply because there are so many better things to do. Can someone envision a situation where you would be better served by bending backwards at the waist, compromising your balance, mobility and ability to effectively strike and by this course of action stop the bad guys aggression so immediately that he fails to make bodily contact with you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top