Gun guy syndrome?

[conw]

Edit: tapatalk added goofy asterisks for some reason. Oh well.

"Gun guy syndrome": the tendency of "gun guys" to attempt to access their weapon at inappropriate times, and/or with disregard for appropriate proxemics. If you doubt this exists take ECQC. Gun guys have a poor ability to make judgments and decisions at very close range. This ties in with Southnarc's quote about it being easier to turn a fighter into a shooter than vice versa.

Gomez has posted lots of good info on the 2 count recently here on THR and on his YouTube account. If you have no idea what I mean by that I advise watching his vids and coming back. The 4 count drawstroke with a #2 pectoral index and locked wrist is discussed here, so you'll be lost if you don't know the concept.

I do a lot of marksmanship type shooting and while I work shooting from a vertical elbow shield/#2 periodically, I'm concerned (as anyone should be IMO) about the tendency to press out to full extension under stress, in the "in between" range of not clinch (where In fight weapon access/#2 is ingrained quite well in me) and not-marksmanship range. *That ambiguous 1.5-2 yard zone where you aren't entangled, but can't press out fully on #4 - I suspect many people in real life get away with a full press out against a single opponent at 1.5-2 yards but I think the proxemics issues are amplified with multiples or multiple unknowns surrounding.


The risks, ingrained tendencies, and benefits of acknowledging the whole issue are well established on Total Protection Interactive but the issue is under discussed elsewhere. *I have never seen a drill that specifically emphasizes decision making based on range and external cues. *I like the idea of institutionalizing these concepts in a repeatable, teachable, fairly simple way. *I don't even believe ECQC 1-2x per year is enough to offset 50+ range marksmanship sessions.


This drill is my rough draft attempt to get something workable. It can be used as a dry fire refresher, or a cooldown after a live fire marksmanship session. *I like it as is but would love to field feedback or hear other people's attempts to work same. *I am sure many people have periodically said "I am going to work a #3 index today," or "I will work a compressed #4," but I don't know of any attempts to ingrain versatility based on external cues. *The drill is of course somewhat contrived (timer, partner calling out orders) but I think it's better than nothing. *Most importantly it's repeatable and ingrains dynamic decision making rather than just a motor skill.


Additionally bear in mind this is a DRILL not a TEST. *The par time is to give an idea of how smoothly and quickly you can do this, but the objective is ingraining good habits rather than beating a benchmark. (Also: AIWB guys will have to decide whether to go straight from holster to #3, or through #2 every time - I think this issue is not very commonly discussed yet, but my preference is to round off #2 completely unless I am specifically drawing to #2. *That makes this drill even more valuable for AIWB in my opinion, since you may potentially have a non-linear, irreconcilable decision tree early in the drawstroke. *Instead of 1-2-3-4 like behind hip, 1-3-4 is specific to one range, and 1-2 is specific to another. *1-3-2 can work but is obviously not optimized for anything. *I find the speed tradeoff at range to be worth the extra decision split. YMMV.) (also I actually really like the SIRT laser as a visual cue for the #3 index. *For anyone wishing to optimize the #3 for this drill I refer you to a TPI thread by contributor Paul Sharp entitled "optimizing the #3".)


Thus I unveil...


Gun Guy Vaccine Drill


Requirements: partner, par timer (e.g. gym boss, cell phone timer with second option can work), full size photographic "bad guy" target

Distance: 1.5-2 yds

Par: 3 seconds

Safety note - don't attempt #2 work without going through Southnarc's progression as outlined in his ECQC classes and Fighting Handgun DVD. *This is NOT a safe drill if you don't have a good foundation in #2 safety.


Shooter stands 1.5-2 yards from target, either in relaxed posture or from high compressed fence. (Suggested progression is relaxed, then HCF later.)


Shooter states, "shooter ready." Partner soon after simultaneously starts par timer (no delay) and gives one of the following commands at random:


"Shoot from 2!"

"Shoot from index!"

"Partial extension!"


If "Shoot from 2!," shooter draws straight to #2 retention position, optionally using horizontal or vertical elbow shield, and simulates forward drive into target (nose over toes, forward posture, crunched down abs, generating power from hips) while dumping rounds until par is up. *When par ends, shooter mates hands (#3 index), scans, and reholsters.


If "Shoot from index!," shooter draws and sidesteps simultaneously, mates hands into #3 index (with or without going through #2 first, as determined by carry method and preferences), and dumps rounds into target at least until par time is up. *Shooter scans and reholsters.


If "Partial extension!," shooter draws and optionally sidesteps, and presses to highly compressed #4 (~40% of full extension) using crude visual reference of front sight ONLY (no sight picture, just front sight somewhere on torso) to dump rounds with extremely fast cadence on target for par duration or longer.


Suggested use is as a refresher (dry or live) to prevent the tendency of only shooting under pressure at full extension, or as a cool-down after a productive marksmanship session to avoid unconsciously ingraining full-extension as the freshest choice.


NB - 2-second par can be used to gauge or develop further speed, but par should not be viewed as an end-state, nor as a cue to immediately stop shooting, lest training scars develop.

 

[Loosedhorse]

proxemics

Or "the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture". Hey, I learned a new word today!

Gun guys have a poor ability to make judgments and decisions at very close range.

Are you speaking about yourself, or does this mean "gun guys like YOU folks out there."

Or just, "gun guys who aren't as cool as we are."

Shooter stands 1.5-2 yards from target

Many ranges don't allow that. I guess folks can substitute dry-fire practice at home, or shoot and move/shoot from retention at the range with a more distant target.

 

[Owen Sparks]

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I shot in an IDPA pistol match once where we started by standing right in front of a cardboard target with our shooting hand touching the target. The object was to step back, execute a close to the body draw and fire two shots from the speed rock position without extending the shooting arm.

Logically, if this was a real fight and I were close enough to reach out and TOUCH the bad guy when the fight started I could easily punch his lights out provided I moved first, and he could do the same to me. Reaching for a pistol when you are within hands range is stupid. Nobody can draw from concealment, align the muzzle and get a shot off as fast as they can throw a punch. Reaching behind your hip within hands range is a really bad idea. One of the basic wrestling tie ups has trapping the opponent’s hand behind his back as the objective. My contention was that in a realistic scenario I would knock the bad guy back so that I had room to draw rather than to back pedal because he can run forward faster than I can run backwards.
When the buzzer sounded I punched the target and knocked it over frame and all. I then drew and put two holes in the down zero area. The RO did not see it my way and I was given a five second procedural even though everyone got a good laugh.

 

[Sam1911]

Gun guys have a poor ability to make judgments and decisions at very close range.

Are you speaking about yourself, or does this mean "gun guys like YOU folks out there."

Or just, "gun guys who aren't as cool as we are."

I took it to mean the general "practical" shooting practitioners who do not practice VERY close-quarters exercises involving weapons grabs, and deflection if they do not have good retention habits.

Shooter stands 1.5-2 yards from target

Many ranges don't allow that. I guess folks can substitute dry-fire practice at home, or shoot and move/shoot from retention at the range with a more distant target.

And some do. I believe he's directing this to folks who have an appropriate place to practice such things.

Perhaps you'd like to share how YOU would practice these things via dryfire? Might be helpful.

 

[Sam1911]

The way we've practiced such things is to simply go to the 2-count shot if the target is close, and then shoot to extension as/if the distance is increasing. You can shoot at any point after your muzzle is indexed forward, so you can also shoot as you retreat and develop your grip through to the 4th count.

I like Owen's points as well, though that is tough to practice. We've done a bit of that using the Terrible Ted type targets, but even then (and certinaly otherwise), you've got to make some reasonable compromises to train for that kind of mixed-force use.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I believe he's directing this to folks who have an appropriate place to practice such things.

Do you also believe he was telling those who don't to go soak their heads and forget about it? He did not specify what should be done if you wish to practice this drill but can't stand that close to the target at your range, so I gave a couple of suggestions (like do the same drill at home, dry-fire).

But I'm sure that conwict appreciates you're looking out for him!

Perhaps you'd like to share how YOU would practice these things via dryfire?

I'm not sure I'd practice these things at all (meaning conwict's specific drills), but I would have thought that how to run through them in dry-fire would be obvious: same as with live-fire, but without ammo.



True, you can't use a timer--maybe your partner can use a stop watch?

My contention was that in a realistic scenario I would knock the bad guy back

It's hard to know. In real life you might have to use both hands and struggle for a while before you can draw or get clear--or even access something else. Or you might have to fend off with the off-hand while firing from retention. In other words, firing while your off-arm is ahead of your muzzle.

There's a thrill!

BTW--Does anyone think this "gun guy syndrome" exists?

 

[Tinman357]

Conwict;

Do you work at, operare or own a self defense school? Your (seemingly) condesending use of obscure verbage is exactly why I personally avoid such places. In my limited (very) experiance, such places are an arena for the instructors to feel and proudly demonstrate their manly prowess in gun skillz. While I sincerely appreciate your sharing your point of view, I for one would be grateful if the demi-gods of gundom would bless me by imparting their vast knowledge in terms that a mere mortal like myself can understand as I fumble my way through life just trying not to shoot myself.

Unfortunately, I do have real world experiance, as I'm sure you do as well. But I didn't notice that my total lack of the training that you so kindly outlined for me above, (thank you) had any measurable affect on my apparently unexplainable survival. Please note that I am completely ignorant as to what kind of training that the worlds bad guys were getting during my 27 year career in 2 different branches of service. Sadly they were unable to tell me.

Please take all of the above "tongue in cheek" as I am attempting a condensending writing style that I'm unfamiliar with.

I truly do realize the effort you put into your OP and found it quite interesting. Though it seemed to be dripping with snobbery and distain for us normal folks. You know, those gun owners who saved for months to buy a decent pistol and ammo is on a case by case basis. We can't afford the kind of equipment you state we "need" nor have I ever been on a public range or even a private range, with in the grasp of us lowly blue collar folks, that would allow any realistic training. I don't imagine the powers that be would be comfortable with the idea of hundreds of thousands of gun owners aquiring combat skills.

Thank you for your time and effort. I do hope that it helps those few people here that: have eazy access to multi million dollar, multi acre shooting meccas you advise are needed.

In other words.... I didn't notice anything you proposed at any of the 2 way ranges I stumbled into...


#wandering away hoping I don't shoot myself for lack of professional training#

 

[Sam1911]

We can't afford the kind of equipment you state we "need"

Can you point out what equipment he stated you need to practice this? I didn't see any. Seems you can practice this in any pistol pit/bay with a simple silhouette target and a handgun. A timer would be nice, but not even necessary. Those don't seem like exhorbitant equipment costs.

He mentions a laser sight as a possible training tool, but made it clear that it isn't mandatory.

nor have I ever been on a public range or even a private range, with in the grasp of us lowly blue collar folks, that would allow any realistic training.

Really? Our local range hosts IDPA shoots (as well as defensive trainers, police quals and competitions, the NTI, and other practical shooting activities) and not a practice night or match goes by that there aren't up to several dozen shooters practicing shooting from retention, on the move, from cover, and various other practical skill sets. A single membership is around $55 a year. Seems pretty accessible to me. I know there are areas where that's less common, but it isn't realistic to claim that such things are only for the wealthy elite.

I don't imagine the powers that be would be comfortable with the idea of hundreds of thousands of gun owners aquiring combat skills.

What the heck does this even mean? What "powers that be" have ANY control over what you learn or how you shoot? That's just silly!

 

[Sam1911]

Or you might have to fend off with the off-hand while firing from retention. In other words, firing while your off-arm is ahead of your muzzle.

There's a thrill!

That's certainly common enough in very close and contact-distance shooting. Like probably all forms of self-defense, the risk of injury (even self-injury) is very real, and is a risk that is accepted in the moment because the risks of harm if you don't act are much worse. We don't want to unduly risk harm in practice, but the closer our practice is to what really happens in a fight with deadly force, the less likely we'll be to make those mistakes in that moment. So, yes, as the intensity and reality of training come closer to the ugliness of real life actions, the greater the risk undertaken by the practitioner. I believe that is true of all disciplines, not just firearms training.

BTW--Does anyone think this "gun guy syndrome" exists?

As a true "syndrome?" Not really. I think it is a (hopefully humorous) overstatement meant to make a point. And the point is valid in the broad sense. Many of us are very familiar with our firearms and confident in their use, but the ingrained safety and range protocol and shooting techniques we practice weekly or daily can instill habits that don't look like or work like what we would need to do in a real fight.

I'm sure there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples, ranging from the very broad (like having "match" pistols that don't feel and work like your "carry" guns), the more pervasive (like engaging targets with set number of rounds, usually 2, and then moving on at all possible speed to the next threat -- when in reality you wouldn't want to bypass a threat simply because you'd shot AT it twice), and to the very specific like this retention shooting issue conwict is describing.

Just last weekend I pointed out one to a new shooter as we watched guys running through a shoot-house/indoor scenario stage in a match: The "USPSA drag," where the shooter needs to move up-range, but must keep the pistol pointed downrange. Faster/better shooting competitors learn to trail (or "drag") the pistol straight out behind them while running up-range. If done well, it is safer and faster than backpedaling up a hallway or up the range where you could easily trip and fall. However, it is a "Gun Guy" technique that isn't something you'd ever want to do in "real life." In real life, you'd keep that gun up front, in your workspace. (Probably in the Count 3 position, or possibly in "Sul," depending on your training.) But you can't do that in a practical shooting match without endangering everyone in your squad, watching you from uprange.

And I could point out several other "Gun Guy" habits or techniques that are similar dichotomies between highly evolved best practices on the range, and BAD habits in real combative situations.

So, while I understand why we're all going to pick on conwict (you big poopie head! ) for using what sounds like elitist jargon, I also understand exactly where he's coming from.

 

[Sam1911]

Or you might have to fend off with the off-hand while firing from retention. In other words, firing while your off-arm is ahead of your muzzle.

There's a thrill!

That's certainly common enough in very close and contact-distance shooting. Like probably all forms of self-defense, the risk of injury (even self-injury) is very real, ...

Here's a "Gun Guy"-ism that directly relates:

When we teach shooting from retention we almost always have the shooter develop the practice of grounding the support hand against some touchstone spot on the body. Usually this is grabbing the belt buckle, or balling up the support-side fist against the center of the chest. The purpose is to keep that hand from drifting in front of the muzzle while the shooter learns to index that gun properly to make telling hits on target.

But grabbing your belt buckle is probably NOT what your support hand (guard hand?) is going to be doing if you ever NEED to shoot from the "speed rock" or from the Count 2 position.

Personally, I like a high guard position with the support side fist guarding the side of the head, elbow forward against/toward attacker (possibly incorporating an elbow strike), head slightly tucked for protection. It accomplishes the same thing for a muzzle-safety benefit, but it is a bit much to impart in getting a square-range shooter or complete newbie initially comfortable with retention shooting.

 

[robMaine]

I have mentioned this in other threads, but it is fairly proven and accepted, that under 10 feet away, you aren't going to draw and get on target(retention postition or otherwise) before an attacker gets to you. At these distances I am more likely to think hand-to-hand. At the distances being discussed here I would never attempt to draw, just throw a punch or shoot a double-leg.

 

[Loosedhorse]

So, yes, as the intensity and reality of training come closer to the ugliness of real life actions, the greater the risk undertaken by the practitioner.

Sure, but there's a fine (if bright) line. Training to shoot from retention with the off-arm positioned high and the muzzle pointed WAY lower can help prevent injury under attack. Training to draw from a shoulder holster so that the off-arm is never crossed can help help prevent injury; so can a "downed officer" shooting drill when you're firing from prone toward a threat past your feet--and making sure to get your toes out of the way. Those are all good.

Then there's the "intensity and reality" of shooting at cardboard targets on a "360 training range" with fellow students standing RIGHT NEXT to the target that you're shooting at. Everyone has to choose for himself, but I'll never participate in that type of training. I guess I'll have to miss that intensity.

 

[Sam1911]

Then there's the "intensity and reality" of shooting at cardborad targets on a "360 training range" with fellow students standing RIGHT NEXT to the target that you're shooting at. Everyone has to choose for himself, but I'll never participate in that type of training. I guess I'll have to miss that intensity.

Uh...ok. I'm not sure we're all still talking about the same thing, but i agree. I don't see what exercises like that are really teaching or practicing that makes them worth the (grave, extreme) risk, and would have no interest in being part of that.

But if the point is simply that there's some threashold between acceptable, educated risk in training and unacceptable, reckless risk, then certainly I agree.

How do you see this informing the discussion of the retention drills?

 

[Sam1911]

I have mentioned this in other threads, but it is fairly proven and accepted, that under 10 feet away, you aren't going to draw and get on target(retention postition or otherwise) before an attacker gets to you. At these distances I am more likely to think hand-to-hand. At the distances being discussed here I would never attempt to draw, just throw a punch or shoot a double-leg.

That is fine, as far as it goes, but (as always) there's more to the discussion that an "either-or" question of punching vs. shooting.

If you look at what guys like SouthNarc are teaching about very close-quarters fighting with a gun, the entire spectrum of violent response is in play. A big part of that is accepting that the best way not to end up hurt is to end the fight as immediately as possible. The longer you slug it out with an attacker, the higher your risk of being hurt and/or killed. And no one said that you'd get off a shot before the attacker reaches you. The skillset here is to be able to shoot even though the attacker is alreay ON you.

Another big facet is realizing that, if you are carrying a gun, then any fight you find yourself in is a fight with a gun. That gun WILL come into play, either in your hands, or in your assailant's hands (retention holsters notwithstanding). You need to make sure that it comes into the equation in YOUR hands, which means using it proactively rather than reactively.

 

[Loosedhorse]

How do you see this informing the discussion of the retention drills?

It informs your comment about risk just being an acceptable part of "intensity and reality" in training. Or perhaps your comments are off-limits for comment?

By the way, the OP was not talking about retention drills. Shooting from retention postition, yes, among other drills as part of what he calls--without definiton--ECQC. I guess "extreme" is the new "tactical," and "combat" the new "defense."

 

[Sam1911]

It informs your comment about risk just being an acceptable part of "intensity and reality" in training.

Ok. I guess I see a connection, sort of.

Or perhaps your comments are off-limits for comment?

WTH? Is there something I'm missing here? I'm getting a strongly negative vibe, right from the first response, that I don't see as helpful.

By the way, the OP was not talking about retention drills. Shooting from retention postition, yes, among other drills...

This seems a crazy nit to pick. Ok, so the OP is talking about "DRILLS THAT INCLUDE SHOOTING FROM RETENTION." Not simply "RETENTION DRILLS." Fine. Whatever you want to call it.

...as part of what he calls--without definiton--ECQC. I guess "extreme" is the new "tactical," and "combat" the new "defense."

You seem to be unhappy with his jargon, and I can sort of understand why that might be, but I don't see why it bothers you quite so much. ECQC is a specific training course offered by SouthNarc: http://shivworks.com/?page_id=881 Making conwict give his own definition for the class, or the phrase, seems silly seeing as it can only be derivative of the formal definition of the class as published by the instructor!

 

[Loosedhorse]

I'm getting a strongly negative vibe

I'm getting the same thing.

Hey, like Tinman357 (who you haven't seen fit to harp on), I found some of conwict's OP off-putting. Nevertheless, I made a comment saying that those who couldn't use his drill as written could get close to it with dry-fire, for example.

conwict doesn't respond, but you come after me asking what the heck do I mean about dry-fire. I didn't (and don't) see what your confusion was about, or why you felt it necessary to jump in on a comment I directed to the OP.

Since then, you've picked on everything I've said, claiming it has no connection. But then later saying,

Ok. I guess I see a connection, sort of.

and then

You seem to be unhappy with his jargon, and I can sort of understand why that might be

Hey, look it over. Maybe you'll see the same thing I've been seeing. But, like I said, another poster said pretty much the same thing about jargon, and yet wasn't singled-out for the third degree.*

And YES, since you noticed it, I am a bit sensitive when someone suggests that you "need" to introduce risk to run training that has "intensity and reality." I go out of my way to reduce risks in training, not introduce them.

That pet peeve is not personal to you.

ECQC is a specific training course offered by SouthNarc

Yes, and the OP could have included that info. I, personally, felt that his failure to do so bespoke a "hey, if you're cool, you wouldn't have to ask" attitude. See Tinman357's post for details.

Sorry that I mistook "Concepts" for "Combat."

*Edited to add: Okay, looking back I guess maybe you did third-degree him a little. Who, knows--maybe that's why he didn't come back; but he'll tell us if he chooses.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm getting the same thing.

It seems to have started strongly with the, "gun guys who aren't as cool as we are," crack. There's no reason to come off like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder just because someone points out common flaws. He's absolutely right.

I agree with you the presentation is a bit gruff, and I said so. But that's no reason to let it [strike]color[/strike] overpower the entire discussion.

Nevertheless, I made a comment saying that those who couldn't use his drill as written could get close to it with dry-fire, for example.

conwict doesn't respond, but you come after me asking what the heck do I mean about dry-fire. I didn't (and don't) see what your confusion was about, or why you felt it necessary to jump in on a comment I directed to the OP.

If you felt I was "jumping in" on you, I apologize. It seemed an odd thing to point out, to me.

I didn't ask, "what the heck" you meant about dry-fire, either. I asked if you could share how exactly you'd do these drills with dryfire exercises. Then you seemed to dismiss the idea by saying you weren't sure you'd practice these things at all! Why bring it up, then? It simply reads as reactionary derision of his post.

Since then, you've picked on everything I've said,

What? I've added to and even agreed with many things you said (especially about the risks inherent in some types of training), as well as offering various examples I felt would shed light on the original source of contention.

I did not catch your meaning when you jumped to the discussion of the nutty "partner-downrange" practices of some of the more ... adventuresome ... instructors. But then I said I thought I understood why you brought that up -- to compare to having your guard arm somewhat beyond the muzzle in certain forms.

Hey, look it over. Maybe you'll see the same thing I've been seeing. But, like I said, another poster said pretty much the same thing about jargon, and yet wasn't singled-out for the third degree.

See above.

And YES, since you noticed it, I am a bit sensitive when someone suggests that you "need" to introduce risk to run training that has "intensity and reality." I go out of my way to reduce risks in training, not introduce them.

I don't see where he DID suggest you needed to introduce risk. Maybe I missed that. I agreed with you that some of the technique do involve a certain amount of risk, and discussed several ways we deal with those risks.

Certainly you can completely avoid risk, but it is difficult to get as much practical benefit out of training (or life, really) if you are TOO risk-averse. Heck, picking up a gun at all represents some risks. Practicing something as complex and fast-paced as very close-quarters shooting drills certainly elevates that basic risk. So, maybe you do need to accept some risk, if not exactly introduce risk for its own sake.

ECQC is a specific training course offered by SouthNarc

Yes, and the OP could have included that info. I, personally, felt that his failure to do so bespoke a "hey, if you're cool, you wouldn't have to ask" attitude.

Ahhh. Ok. I thought that was clear from the first paragraph, where he mentioned "take ECQC" and SouthNarc. But that is a sort of "insider" speak, if you don't recognize the abbreviation, or know who SouthNarc is.

*Edited to add: Okay, looking back I guess maybe you did third-degree him a little. Who, knows--maybe that's why he didn't come back; but he'll tell us if he chooses.

Did I say anything inappropriate? Surely we don't need to accept there are "powers that be" who are seeking to keep us from "combat" training, or that defensive shooting skills, practice venues, and training are the exclusive province of the monied elite? I hope there's no harm in saying so plainly.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You know what, I've typed out a response, which I will send as a PM. Because I think that's best.

As for this thread, I will just say: I am sorry if I took some things in the OP and in your responses the wrong way, and if I then gave the wrong impression of my position.

Respect.

 

[conw]

More on the topic of the OP, I plan on going in depth with a response soon because somehow a lot of things were (mis)read into it.

I clearly stated (no edit) it can be used as a "dry fire refresher" (I didn't explain specifically how though). Also the equipment cost is one handgun, a few rounds of ammo (if livefire), one stopwatch, and one friend. How my training post is elitist or flaunting wealth when there are tons of "what is a good choice for my 4th gun purchase this year" threads boggles the mind.

One poster expressed concern (not unreasonably perhaps...although I think it is a good idea to get an idea of the #2 position discussed by watching Paul Gomez's videos first) about using a fending hand while shooting from retention while another mocked my safety warning about shooting from retention.

You can't please everybody. The post originally was from for a private board where a lot of the "jargon" is better understood, although Googling ECQC, southnarc, or even Paul Gomez would help a lot. I added some explanations for THR but apparently not enough.

The gun guy syndrome jab was tongue in cheek. Again apparently not very obvious to a few readers. Mea culpa. That said, it does exist...it is demonstrable and it is also a logical outcome of rarely shooting from a compressed position. If "you" do then this may not apply to you. It would apply to me (being a bit of a gun guy by my own definition in the OP) if I hadn't sought and applied corrective training.

I may make a video reply to clear things up and demo the drill which should help more than the post judging by a few of the replies that seemed to indicate I could be more clear.

 

[2zulu1]

I have mentioned this in other threads, but it is fairly proven and accepted, that under 10 feet away, you aren't going to draw and get on target(retention postition or otherwise) before an attacker gets to you. At these distances I am more likely to think hand-to-hand. At the distances being discussed here I would never attempt to draw, just throw a punch or shoot a double-leg.

I'm in agreement with your statement. At 1.5 yards the felon is a kick away, a little farther out equates to a step and kick away. I've been in knock down dragouts and to believe one can somehow deflect an aggressive move while drawing a sidearm is foolish, try it while on a slippery snow bank with an anaerobic heart rate.

There's a huge difference between competition/sport shooting and being involved in a lethal situation. The anology I use is the difference is like the difference between drag racing and desert/off-road racing.

There are times, regardless of training/experiential knowledge, when everything boils down to luck and I expect someone will come along with a four step analysis to explain that.

 

[Sam1911]

I've been in knock down dragouts and to believe one can somehow deflect an aggressive move while drawing a sidearm is foolish, try it while on a slippery snow bank with an anaerobic heart rate.

There's nothing wrong with your observations -- lots of truth there. Are you familair with SouthNarc, and the things he is teaching? There are videos at the shivworks.com site that speak directly to what you're saying.

And they have a lot to do with this (perhaps poorly chosen ) "Gun Guy" hangup. The idea is, you aren't going to get a clean draw, plenty of space to work, and a target standing a few yards away as though he's made of carboard!

Take a look at what exactly is being taught and share your thoughts.

 

[Walkalong]

condesending use of obscure verbage

Loses me every time as well. Sort of like used car sales people. Got no time for it. I am not interested in advise from anyone who thinks we are incompetent morons. If that is not how you feel, you should study your delivery, assuming you are genuinely interested in being helpful.

 

[conw]

It is fallacious to assume robbery or criminal aggression always results in a head on physical assault. Sometimes a weapon is brandished, pointed, or shown from a concealed location to intimidate "or else." Personally I feel it is wise to have the ability to draw quickly from concealment to respond decisively to this scenario. That's the shoot from index or the compressed #4 portion come in. Other times it may be possible or desirable to draw and close or move past someone...that's where shoot from 2 comes in.

The drill itself is not intended to take someone who has no training and prepare them for any close quarter situation as an end state. That would be asking too much.

However having a versatile, dynamic drawstroke that works without always going to full extension makes sense. This is a tool to practice awareness and groove good motor movement. It isn't as if you lose the ability yo use other options or other close quarter defensive skills.

If you prefer to think "usually you can't use a gun within 10 feet anyway if someone is trying to close quickly so I'd rather not practice it at all" or "it comes down to luck, all this analysis is a waste of time" seems quite short sighted but we all make our decisions and live with them.

 

[Owen Sparks]

There is a world of difference between being a 'gun fighter' and a fighter with a gun.

A gun fighter only has one weapon and is totally dependent upon it. A fighter with a gun has multiple weapons including the ability to punch and kick, wrestle, head butt, bite and gouge and pick up various common objects and use them effectively as weapons because he has trained with them. The most important thing he has though is the combat mindset, the most critical component of which is awareness. Going around in public with your hearing impaired and distracted is not conducive to the combat mindset and a serious diversion from the path of a warrior. Save music and other forms of relaxation for the times when you are in condition white and can afford to let your guard down.