Retention distance

[Matthew Temkin]

Fairbran also used a form of body index in his methods (squaring the body to the threat.)

And for that matter go look at Ed McGiven's photos. He always squared up his body to shoot and do his amazing feats (alot of them without sights.)

Once the basics of point shooting are acquired a body index--meaning squaring oneself to the target--is no longer necessary.
With minimal practice you can send a burst of bullets into whatever target that your eyes are focused on, no matter what position that you are shooting from.

Index and trigger control. How you achieve that is up to you.
Amen to that.

 

[JohnKSa]

Without putting a lot of thought into it, I'd say if the opponent is out of reach of your gun then you're outside of retention distance.

That would say that anything inside 2 yards (your arm length plus your opponent's arm length) would be inside of retention distance. The reasoning being that with an opponent at 6 feet, if you extended your gun out in front of you in a normal shooting position the opponent would be able to reach it. Therefore you'd want to modify your normal shooting position at that range or closer to enhance your retention capability.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

IMHO this is not so much retention distance,but rather when should one shoot from a retention position.
To me the answer is a foot or so.

 

[JohnKSa]

...this is not so much retention distance,but rather when should one shoot from a retention position.

I guess I don't understand the distinction, nor the value of making such a distinction.

If, when the attacker is within 6 feet, one should shoot from retention, then why wouldn't that be called retention distance?

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Shooting from retention is a technique.
Past 1-2 feet is not, IMO, retention distance.
3-50 feet calls for a variety of shooting methods.

 

[JohnKSa]

Past 1-2 feet is not, IMO, retention distance.

So even though an opponent 3 feet away can easily reach your gun, you would not advocate modifying your shooting technique to help minimize the possibility/success of a gun grab?

Or is it that you're saying that past 1-2 feet shooting from retention isn't effective?

I'm still not following...

 

[CA Raider]

this subject is getting beat to death. not in an enlightening way.

anyone here who is competent should be able to shoot their attacker within a 3-foot distance, with the pistol at #2 position in the draw. no aim required. forget complexity. rotate your hips, point the muzzle in the right direction, and pull the trigger (your free hand better not be in front of the muzzle ). fire several shots into your attacker.

then be prepared to fight it out ... its not over until one man is left standing.

good luck,
CA R

 

[Matthew Temkin]

For many years Deaf, myself and others have had spirited debates about the need for point shooting.
Deaf's claim has been consistent for the duration--that one can get by with sighted shooting and retention shooting.
As with so much confusion, the meat of the debate hinged on a misunderstanding of terms--meaning the confusion of retention shooting ( weapon held very close to the body) with retention distance.
Had this been made clear over 10 years ago it would have ended then and there with Deaf and I agreeing that for for 99% of armed encounters one can get by very well with some type of non sighted shooting out to 9 feet or so ( I will push that to 15 feet) and aimed/semi aimed fire for longer distances.
In other words, it is the term "point shooting" that has led to so much confusion on our parts.

 

[xXxplosive]

As per Gomez.....Count 2 of draw stroke and weak arm for defending the gun.....No ?

 

[Deaf Smith]

As Matt said, we have had an interesting debate for many a year.

My contention was also the retention/hip shooting distance overlap the sighted fire distance.

That is, being able to use quick sighted fire from close in (say 2 yards) and retention/hip to 3 or so yards (or even 5 yards if you are real real good from the belt level.) And by quick I do mean quick! That is what 'flash sight picture' was all about. You verify just as you snap the gun up and press the trigger. The verification don't even take 1/10 of a second. No sight adjustment, just verify. And if you cannot see the sights, still bring the weapon up AS IF you could see the sights.

It was only in the 3/4 hip shooting that I feel can be dropped (but once one has mastered the first two, if they want to go farther and develop alternative ways, that is an excellent idea. But as a basic 'must have' one concentrates on the sighted fire and retention/hip shooting.

Anyway, our two views are not that far apart. In fact, once I read Cooper's field manual and the subject of what to do if it's to dark to see the sights, it dawned on me we were working from the opposite ends toward the same middle on this.

It's more on how you train than the concepts.

Deaf

 

[9mmepiphany]

It was only in the 3/4 hip shooting that I feel can be dropped (but once one has mastered the first two, if they want to go farther and develop alternative ways, that is an excellent idea. But as a basic 'must have' one concentrates on the sighted fire and retention/hip shooting.

That is my basic belief too.

If you learn trigger control through sighted fire, it will carry over to other techniques.

If you can shoot from retention, the further out you stick the gun, the faster you'll be able to make accurate shots.

If you learn sighted fire, you don't need to learn point shoulder/Stressfire Index or whatever you choose to call it. That is how we shot in the dark back in the revolver days before the had nightsights

 

[Matthew Temkin]

It was only in the 3/4 hip shooting that I feel can be dropped
Applegate agreed with you on this.
But to me 3/4 hip is just a natural step in shooting through your draw stroke, and is really nothing more than shooting from a modified 3 position, albeit with one hand.
It is also very similar to Cirillo's "nose point" method.
I personally, and quite a few of my students, have found the 3/4 hip position to be fast, excellent at taming recoil and deadly accurate at distances that fall somewhere between half hip and full extension.
I am also a firm believer in what has been termed "point shoulder" which is pretty much shooting without the sights witth the gun at full extension--just another step in the continuum of point-aimed fire.
As per Gomez.....Count 2 of draw stroke and weak arm for defending the gun.....No ?
Pretty much.
In 3/4 hip the pistol is pretty much in line with your sternum area and your arm extended a bit more than from hip shooting position, where you gun arm is bent at about a 90 degree angle.