Tactical debate: Muzzle up or muzzle depressed?

[Cavalier Knight]

Article on muzzle discipline it's a long article so I just added a link.

The problem: muzzle discipline is often not practiced In training, in simulations and in real life, we consistently see muzzles pointed at people (or targets, in training) that we don’t intend to shoot at the moment. Sometimes when we see that on the street, it results in someone we don’t want to shoot or aren’t justified in shooting getting shot or killed.

Muzzle Discipline

 

[ilbob]

i vote for muzzle down unless there is some special reason to point it up. rule 1. muzzle up mostly points it in a direction where the likelihood of serious negative consequences to someone who does not necessarily need to be shot is high.

 

[highorder]

low ready.

 

[BridgeWalker]

I am very leery of muzzle down around the house because we have a basement and it is frequently used.

 

[Owen]

His commenters don't seem to understand what he is saying at all.

Or I don't. It can be hard to tell sometimes.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Kelly McCann, IIRC, made a point in his training videos, to keep the muzzle down as a rule, for the reason that if someone grabbed your weapon, all you have to do is step back to extend your arms and fire. Muzzle up (Charlie's Angels) can lead to your own weapon pointing at your head in a grapple/retention situation. I would think training to one standard is best to keep it simple and effective. A common set up techniques appropriate for CQ building clearance, covering suspects in the open, etc.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Sometimes, there simply is no safe direction.

It's rarely found "up".

It's usually (but not always) found "down".

Reducing the gratuitous pointing of guns at people who don't immediately need to be shot is a good thing.

 

[Pat-inCO]

First a question: What are you asking?

The article is written for police and by police. The majority of us have NO reason to point a gun at - anyone - unless it is to keep that person from seriously hurting or killing us or someone else. Police, on the other hand, have reason to have their weapon at the ready when it would be TOTALLY inappropriate for any of us to have one out of the holster.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I was trained to be at low ready unless actively engaging targets or clearing a room that you don't know if there are targets in it. So that's what I do, even with my weapons at the range or at home.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The article linked is not talking about a muzzle up ready position, it's using the term "muzzle up" to mean pointed at a target.

Low ready is "muzzle down".

There's no mention at all of a muzzle up in the air ready position, when he say up he means pointed at someone.

The debate in the article is whether Police should point guns at people they don't intend to shoot.

The last paragraph clears it up :

P.S.
In this article, I have referred to a muzzle depressed position as the “safe” position for an unholstered gun to be in when there is no imminent threat. The high muzzle position (or high ready position) is favored by some very highly experienced people, but for the purposes of this article it is probably not as safe, particularly if the officer falls. The undoubtedly hot debate over which position — depressed or high ready — is tactically better in what circumstances and why, we leave to another day.

ETA: It's a good article, worth reading.

 

[joffe]

Maybe I'm being stupid or overthinking this, but.. If you're going into a house, you believe there are suspects hiding in here, and you draw your gun and begin searching.. Why would you want to extend your arms all the way out? I mean, these are close quarters, and your gun is at the front of your body extended all the way out - wouldn't it be easier to disarm you this way? Wouldn't it be smarter to keep the gun close to your body (yet in a position to point-shoot if needed)?

 

[easyg]

I am very leery of muzzle down around the house because we have a basement and it is frequently used.

Better a bullet in your own basement than a bullet coming through the roof of a stranger's house, or a church, or a school, or a daycare, several miles away.

 

[HM2PAC]

When I was trained, the thought was to be able/comfortable with both.

 

[Erik]

"Why would you want to extend your arms all the way out?"

The extention of your arms, or lack thereof, has little or nothing to do with where the muzzle is directed.

---

The artical is a good one, and is relevant to anyone who might find themselves in the position of having a gun out with the expectation of deciding to point it at someone or not.

 

[Mtnvalley]

Muzzle up, if you're filming a remake of Starsky & Hutch.

Otherwise, position sul (unless it's lowlight and you're using your flashlight to scan for targets/activity). I was glad to see one of the responses on that page refer to training his LEOs that way.

If using flashlight, I'd think your ready would be somewhat dependent on your preferred light technique; Harries or Rogers would kinda preclude not muzzling when searching, but a separated-hands technique (FBI, neck index) would give you options.

 

[CWL]

I have never heard of any legitimate trainer who teaches you to point the muzzle up, except when carrying long guns.

The only time I have ever seen it is on TV or the movies. Anyone who does this has obviously learned firearms handling from Hollywood.

If you do a "Full Sabrina", your arms, hands and the gun will block your vision.

 

[sacp81170a]

When taking a subject at gunpoint, we train to point down and slightly away from the person for a couple of reasons. When you clear leather, you've made a decision that's tough to back away from. If the person doesn't comply with your commands, what do you do? By not aiming at the person right away, you give them and yourself one more psychological "step" to go before you have to shoot. By pointing in such a direction, you don't block your own observation of the subject. You need to be able to see their hands, waistline (which is where the things that can hurt you are usually kept) and feet. Try it sometime with a friend and a thoroughly (triple) cleared weapon and you'll see what I mean. Also, in case of a stress induced ND, the round is less likely to hit someone.

Lastly, in the event that you do have to shoot, pulling the trigger while raising the gun is a more natural unopposing motion than pulling the trigger while trying to lower the gun.

YMMV.

 

[1911 guy]

I've trained with both and find both useful in certain situations. For the vast majority of the time, and if forced to pick one, I'd choose the low ready. High ready makes the assumption that there is nobody in front of you who doesn't need a bullet and there is either a safe backstop or such distance/angle that a ND will be relatively inconsequential given the situation.

I'm assuming here that high ready means a muzzle parallell to the ground, not shooting holes in the sky ala Charlies Angels.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

You guys really ought to read the article before commenting on it.

 

[possum]

muzzle disciplin and trigger discilin go hand in hand, i use the sul postion or the center hold depending on the situation which has the muzzle pointed down.

 

[1911 guy]

I'm with Possum.

Well, not actually "with" him, but I agree.

One tactic does not fit all. Sounds like Possum has walked into a few "empty" buildings and can relate.

If I'm the first in the stack and assume low/no risk, then I use a traditional low ready. Nothing but worms get shot if I ND.

If I'm first in the stack and assume high/probable risk, use a high ready, handgun pointed foreward but drawn in close to the chest.

If I'm anywhere but first in the stack, sul. My friends/coworkers don't like having guns pointed at them.

If I'm staying to secure the entrance, low ready.

Working on my own, low ready or high ready depending on percieved threat level.

I'm not a cop, nor do I play one on T.V., but the article seems to be a rational man trying to tell his coworkers not to point guns at people. Sure, you may be justified in pointing/shooting yet resolve it without firing. Good, and you were justified in being prepared to fire if needed. However, the article seems to be addressing the issue of police pointing guns at people just because they can. It happens, and as evidenced by the Va. shooting mentioned in the article, it's sometimes doctrine. Bad form. In short, my view on the article is that there are a lot of people carrying handguns who apparently don't understand that you shouldn't be waving it around indiscriminantly.

Granted, my experience lies totally in the realm of the military and security. It's been taken as a given by everyone except the police, apparently, that AD/ND's happen and shooting people who don't need it doesn't win hearts and minds. Maybe I'm too many beers in (I just got off work) but this seems like real world training is severely lacking if we're still having to tell folks not to point guns at other folks without reason.

Another agreement with possum. Trigger discipline and muzzle discipline go hand in hand. Without them, you get sued and screwed.

 

[AndyC]

The only reason I've ever found for the existence of high-ready... is so the TV-people can get the gun and the actor's face in the same shot.

 

[mgregg85]

I prefer muzzle down so you can at least shoot at their feet if they try to push the gun away. On the other hand, with the high ready if they try to push the muzzle up and towards you they are opening themselves up for a quick butt stroke to the head.

 

[Erik]

"The only reason I've ever found for the existence of high-ready... is so the TV-people can get the gun and the actor's face in the same shot."

That's not high ready or what the author is talking about.

 

[Blackbeard]

I know next to nothing about tactics, but I would think that muzzle up would block at least part of your field of vision. I'd hold muzzle down unless you're above an occupied floor.