the naked prophet
Member
I've only got one thing to say. If I have to get into a gunfight, I hope it's against someone who picked their ammo choice based on the advice from the VTC.
Sometimes "experts" make me wonder...
- Thread starter UnintendedConsequences
- Start date
- Status
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Am I the only one who finds it troublesome that a firearm training facility for "peace officers" is called "Valhalla?" Do the police who frequent SWAT training facilities consider themselves to be beard-bedecked Norse warriors, making the gods of war proud by going out in a violent blaze of glory?
I suppose they do consider themselves heroic Norse warriors. One of their favorite "weapons of [the drug] war" is called "Thor's Hammer," a battering ram for beating down the doors of drug dealers (or any other violator of God's rights.) Or perhaps doors on houses that just happen to be the wrong address.
Of course, Vikings were also Norse warriors.
If they're Norse warriors, perhaps we're all living in the "grove of fetters."
-Sans Authoritas
I suppose they do consider themselves heroic Norse warriors. One of their favorite "weapons of [the drug] war" is called "Thor's Hammer," a battering ram for beating down the doors of drug dealers (or any other violator of God's rights.) Or perhaps doors on houses that just happen to be the wrong address.
Of course, Vikings were also Norse warriors.
If they're Norse warriors, perhaps we're all living in the "grove of fetters."
-Sans Authoritas
The gel testing results I have seen for Glaser safety slugs have not been impressive. I do not put complete faith in gel testing - I know a lot of unpredictable stuff can happen in real life that doesn't happen in the lab - but I just cannot muster any faith in that bullet design.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Among the most striking characteristics of Massad Ayoob, Louis Awerbuck, and other great instructors is that they don't lay down absolute rules for their students to follow. Great teachers share their knowledge and experience, provide guidelines that a student can use to tie it together or modify according to his own experience, and assist students in developing approaches and strengths in each student.
I've been there while Ayoob explained why he had changed his mind about something. His explanation was valuable because it's helped me learn to think about problems, which is part of what I want: someone helping me to think for myself, not telling me what to think. I've also seen Awerbuck comment to a student that an aspect of the student's technique was textbook wrong but practically effective and that as long as it continued to work for him he should stay with what's effective. I was next to that student on the line and saw him slapping his handgun's trigger consistently but drilling one big hole into every target he shot in every situation. I've also had each of them point out specific weaknesses I needed to address. Great instructors help their students learn and develop and prepare themselves. They don't stroke their own egos or pat their own backs.
So what a student takes away from classes with those instructors is useable because it becomes the student's property. And because the learning becomes part of the student, the student can develop from courses with other instructors of similar kind. The students don't encounter instructor prejudice. I've benefitted immensely from every class with those instructors. They supplement and complement each other and assist growth.
What I figured out immediately is that such instructors focus on their students instead of on their own egos or agendas or programs or methods. Their teaching is portable, they travel with it, and they always have what they know with them. There's nothing new in this concept. It's always been the nature of great teachers and great teaching. Long ago a wise man said "Take a log cabin in the West, put a wooden bench in it, with Mark Hopkins on one end and a student on the other, and you have a college." (Mark Hopkins was a great teacher of that time.)
I've never regretted one penny or one minute I've spent with those instructors but I've declined the opportunity to take free instruction from the other kind. That "free" instruction would have been far too costly for me. I stay far away from "one size fits all" socks, underwear, and anything else that gets close to my body, including instruction. If it fits all, it's probably not going to fit me properly except by chance.
I'm also not much interested in current fashion. I doubt that my home will be invaded or my car jacked by someone who says "I have no respect for you because you've never taken a course from Charles of the Ritz." Just my opinion, not necessarily anyone else's.
I've been there while Ayoob explained why he had changed his mind about something. His explanation was valuable because it's helped me learn to think about problems, which is part of what I want: someone helping me to think for myself, not telling me what to think. I've also seen Awerbuck comment to a student that an aspect of the student's technique was textbook wrong but practically effective and that as long as it continued to work for him he should stay with what's effective. I was next to that student on the line and saw him slapping his handgun's trigger consistently but drilling one big hole into every target he shot in every situation. I've also had each of them point out specific weaknesses I needed to address. Great instructors help their students learn and develop and prepare themselves. They don't stroke their own egos or pat their own backs.
So what a student takes away from classes with those instructors is useable because it becomes the student's property. And because the learning becomes part of the student, the student can develop from courses with other instructors of similar kind. The students don't encounter instructor prejudice. I've benefitted immensely from every class with those instructors. They supplement and complement each other and assist growth.
What I figured out immediately is that such instructors focus on their students instead of on their own egos or agendas or programs or methods. Their teaching is portable, they travel with it, and they always have what they know with them. There's nothing new in this concept. It's always been the nature of great teachers and great teaching. Long ago a wise man said "Take a log cabin in the West, put a wooden bench in it, with Mark Hopkins on one end and a student on the other, and you have a college." (Mark Hopkins was a great teacher of that time.)
I've never regretted one penny or one minute I've spent with those instructors but I've declined the opportunity to take free instruction from the other kind. That "free" instruction would have been far too costly for me. I stay far away from "one size fits all" socks, underwear, and anything else that gets close to my body, including instruction. If it fits all, it's probably not going to fit me properly except by chance.
I'm also not much interested in current fashion. I doubt that my home will be invaded or my car jacked by someone who says "I have no respect for you because you've never taken a course from Charles of the Ritz." Just my opinion, not necessarily anyone else's.
Rob Pincus
Member
First, I appreciate the discussion about he topic..... but, I would encourage those of you interested in the video and opinions expressed to check it out yourselves... about 750,000 copies have been sent out by the NRA, so chances are you can find someone in your shooting circles that might have a copy.... Unintended Consequences paraphrasing of the parts he was irked by might have cast an unfair light on the presentation of information.
The videos are completely Un-sponsored and the only people who have any input into the final content besides me are the Branding Partners who distribute the product to their people (in the case o this video, the NRA, SAF and Guns & Ammo Magazine in various forms). There is no one paying me to say anything..... nor have I ever been paid to endorse a product on video or any of the many TV spots I've done.
All that said, let's get to the point of the sections that UC brought up:
1. while it is obvious that "the gun you have" is the best gun to defend yourself with, the bonus section that UC brought up was a discussion of various different types/actions/brands of firearms. I expressed my opinion that the an efficient/simple gun in a medium caliber is what I prefer to use and recommend for defensive use. A J-frame revolver and the various striker fired "safe action" type pistols were the specific types highlighted, as I recall. Throughout the video series, I use a variety of pistols, including a Clark Caspian 1911, a Glock 19, an S&W M&P and a S&W 945, and a J-frame 642 among others...
2. As for the penetration demo, depending on the branding partner, there were two different final edits. The NRA did not want to seem to be endorsing specialty ammunition such as TAP in .223 or Glasers. They often have concerns about "their" material (or that with their involvement/logos, etc) being used against the shooting community to support legislation. The demonstration was part of the "Home Defense Tips" to show what is likely to happen if you fire a round inside a typical construction home and do not hit your target. The demonstrations originally showed a .22, a .45 a .40, 12 OO, 12 slug, 12 birdshot, .223 JHP, 9mm Glaser, .223 TAP, as I recall. Some edits didn't have all the demos.... But, the point was to show that missing your target is bad with just about any type of ammo/caliber combination that you are likely to use and you should be aware of that. The demonstration showed that. The observations being made in terms of the penetration through interior house walls were made in that light.... not in the light of recommending rounds for their effects on the bad guy. That said, I'm not volunteering to take a load of .410 buckshot (or any round/caliber/gauge mentioned in the piece) from the distance of a typically room or hall inside a home! As was noted in an earlier post, lack of penetration can be viewed as a good thing in some contexts.
Thanks again to those of you who have watched the videos.... Whenever you are watching a training/demonstration video try to keep the context in mind, as it could be very important.
The videos are completely Un-sponsored and the only people who have any input into the final content besides me are the Branding Partners who distribute the product to their people (in the case o this video, the NRA, SAF and Guns & Ammo Magazine in various forms). There is no one paying me to say anything..... nor have I ever been paid to endorse a product on video or any of the many TV spots I've done.
All that said, let's get to the point of the sections that UC brought up:
1. while it is obvious that "the gun you have" is the best gun to defend yourself with, the bonus section that UC brought up was a discussion of various different types/actions/brands of firearms. I expressed my opinion that the an efficient/simple gun in a medium caliber is what I prefer to use and recommend for defensive use. A J-frame revolver and the various striker fired "safe action" type pistols were the specific types highlighted, as I recall. Throughout the video series, I use a variety of pistols, including a Clark Caspian 1911, a Glock 19, an S&W M&P and a S&W 945, and a J-frame 642 among others...
2. As for the penetration demo, depending on the branding partner, there were two different final edits. The NRA did not want to seem to be endorsing specialty ammunition such as TAP in .223 or Glasers. They often have concerns about "their" material (or that with their involvement/logos, etc) being used against the shooting community to support legislation. The demonstration was part of the "Home Defense Tips" to show what is likely to happen if you fire a round inside a typical construction home and do not hit your target. The demonstrations originally showed a .22, a .45 a .40, 12 OO, 12 slug, 12 birdshot, .223 JHP, 9mm Glaser, .223 TAP, as I recall. Some edits didn't have all the demos.... But, the point was to show that missing your target is bad with just about any type of ammo/caliber combination that you are likely to use and you should be aware of that. The demonstration showed that. The observations being made in terms of the penetration through interior house walls were made in that light.... not in the light of recommending rounds for their effects on the bad guy. That said, I'm not volunteering to take a load of .410 buckshot (or any round/caliber/gauge mentioned in the piece) from the distance of a typically room or hall inside a home! As was noted in an earlier post, lack of penetration can be viewed as a good thing in some contexts.
Thanks again to those of you who have watched the videos.... Whenever you are watching a training/demonstration video try to keep the context in mind, as it could be very important.
Last edited:
the naked prophet
Member
I'll volunteer to take a .410 birdshot round at across-the-room distances. If you can take up a sufficient collection, that is. I'll be wearing an old leather jacket, and I'll be facing away and covering my head.
Medical issues will be covered by a pair of tweezers and some bandaids.
Medical issues will be covered by a pair of tweezers and some bandaids.
Brian Dale
Member
Good post, Rob.
Good thread, UC.
Good thread, UC.
SoCalShooter
Member
Well, I am not that aged yet but in all my years of experience I have found that experts aren't they are just someone who has formulated an opinion with a small amount of facts.
On a personal note, I just use FMJ's and (just my opinion) but at least I know a big round nose hunk of jacketed lead is going to work.
On a personal note, I just use FMJ's and (just my opinion) but at least I know a big round nose hunk of jacketed lead is going to work.
bluestarlizzard
Member
i havn't watched the second video yet, but in the first ( in a special section about defensive handguns) he seem to be very partial to a S&W bodygaurd, not a glock.
i thought pincus to be a knowledgable induvidiual. i don't nessasarly agree with his shooting postion as the end all to shooting stance, but i agreed with most of his techniques and such. he did not strike me as being a " do it MY way or you'll die" type, more of a "this is my advise, do with it as you will" type.
i will watch the second video now, and see if i shall contribute further to discussion.
i thought pincus to be a knowledgable induvidiual. i don't nessasarly agree with his shooting postion as the end all to shooting stance, but i agreed with most of his techniques and such. he did not strike me as being a " do it MY way or you'll die" type, more of a "this is my advise, do with it as you will" type.
i will watch the second video now, and see if i shall contribute further to discussion.
Acera
Member
I agree with the opinions expressed by those about box of truth. They lost me on the video testing of Tauruses The Judge, and complained about the difficulty of finding .410 slugs. They had to make some out 21/2s of the 3 inch .410's they could find. I wanted to ask why waste the time when a .45 LC would do a better job, and the gun was designed for it. Just bush league IMHO. But it makes better video for a non gun educated population.
bluestarlizzard
Member
watched the second video. it seemed to be a well thought out demenstration that was a watchable length and covered some intresting points. in many instances, the instructor admonished those watching to ADAPT techniques for their personally abilities.
as far as i see, that is the case with any good instructor with any subject or activity.
where is the bit about defensive ammo? i don't remember it in the first video and it wasn't in the second...
as far as i see, that is the case with any good instructor with any subject or activity.
where is the bit about defensive ammo? i don't remember it in the first video and it wasn't in the second...
kir_kenix
Member
u cant talk about guns, self defense, or techniques in absolutes. what works great for one person might not for another. i think the BOT and valhalla are both right, and both wrong. the very characteristics one is looking for in a SD load or equipment in a crowded appartment building might very well be the opposite of an individual living alone on a country farm.
robert's post is very insightful and i believe this is the instruction that we all should look for. let the student make up his own mind and use what works for him/her.
robert's post is very insightful and i believe this is the instruction that we all should look for. let the student make up his own mind and use what works for him/her.
Rob Pincus
Member
Thanks, Guys...
Blue, as I noted, there area couple of different edits of the video. Is yours only titled "Combat Focus Shooting" or does it also say something about "Home Defense" on the cover? If the latter is missing, you don't have the HD Footage. Those who did not get the bonus HD footage on that disk will get it later in the series (with Adv. Pistol Handling or Defensive Firearms Use in Public, which will be released in a couple of weeks).
Thanks again to those of you who have supported the series!
-RJP
Blue, as I noted, there area couple of different edits of the video. Is yours only titled "Combat Focus Shooting" or does it also say something about "Home Defense" on the cover? If the latter is missing, you don't have the HD Footage. Those who did not get the bonus HD footage on that disk will get it later in the series (with Adv. Pistol Handling or Defensive Firearms Use in Public, which will be released in a couple of weeks).
Thanks again to those of you who have supported the series!
-RJP
An expert is someone paid to give an opinion
Jury trials will often have experts on the same subject giving different opinions from different sides of the aisle. Amazing what money can and will do to an expert.
Brian Dale-
I didn't know that I was directing anything at all in Mr. Pincus' direction. I admit I didn't read the entire thread and was just espousing my opinion on anybody you go to that you pay for their opinion. My personal recollection of 'Experts' in the justice system is not positive. Pay someone money to tell them what you want will get you just that. What you want to hear. There are many experts. Just don't swallow everything they tell you without realizing they are paying their bills with it. My observations are not based on any one or any training methods mentioned above.
Jury trials will often have experts on the same subject giving different opinions from different sides of the aisle. Amazing what money can and will do to an expert.
Brian Dale-
I didn't know that I was directing anything at all in Mr. Pincus' direction. I admit I didn't read the entire thread and was just espousing my opinion on anybody you go to that you pay for their opinion. My personal recollection of 'Experts' in the justice system is not positive. Pay someone money to tell them what you want will get you just that. What you want to hear. There are many experts. Just don't swallow everything they tell you without realizing they are paying their bills with it. My observations are not based on any one or any training methods mentioned above.
Last edited:
Brian Dale
Member
As I read it, that looks like a cheap shot, Colt46. Rob Pincus is right here in this thread. Can you give him more specific feedback?
Edited to Add: My mistake. Thank you for clarifying it for me.
Edited to Add: My mistake. Thank you for clarifying it for me.
Last edited:
Smurfslayer
Member
Would you start paying for a car that a dealer just dropped by your house unsolicited?
http://bighammer.net/images/bill.pdf
http://bighammer.net/images/bill.pdf
Last edited:
- Status
