The integration of shooting techniques

[7677]

I have been asked by several members here to post more information on the system I use.

I also what to take a minute to apologize to D.R. Middlebrooks for the path the Fist-Fire thread went down since I had a part in it. Potential students should be able to look at his system objectively and that didn't happen…I should have started another thread.

Back to the regularly scheduled program,

The History,

Historically, a person has been labeled by the style of shooting they learned such as Modern Technique (weaver), Iso, or FSA. Each of these training styles all had its own unique stance/position and techniques that set it apart from the other styles. More importantly there has been a long history of battling between them.

The integration of shooting techniques is something that has occurred with me over the past seventeen years.

The integration of shooting techniques has already been done and it is not a new concept. Fairbairn and Syke’s book Shooting to Live highlighted and taught point shooting for close quarters combat and advocated sighted shooting for longer shots. But the integration of shooting techniques go beyond the squared range as it has to work in FoF simulations.

I feel that most instructors focus on picture perfect positions/stances and shooting bullseye targets on a square range and not enough time moving and shooting. When you put a person under stress and make them perform, they do not think about which stance they are going to use. They automatically chose the position that is appropriate to deal with the threat and the positions after become fluid as the environment changes.

Not I’m not saying that learning stances is a waste of time I’m just saying that once you have learned them there is a natural progression after this. The more one is exposed to realistic FoF training the more this concept becomes integrated into one actions and reactions.

FoF has been one of the biggest eye openers and it will either validate most techniques or dismiss it. Secondly, FoF simulation has to be done in a manner that puts the shooter under stress and the outcome of the exercise is not known. We put the our students through several situations to work on both judgement skills and self defense skills and during one of the scenarios they have to use deadly force.

However, what you think you are doing and what you actually doing are not always the same thing during a gunfight or FoF simulations.

 

[JMusic]

Shooting and moving was not taught to me at first in my carreer. I shot PPC and it was a basic target shooting course. Frankly you were not allowed to move from your lane and no discussion was ever initiated on shooting and moving. Then I was shot at. First thing that I noticed was I was running for cover. About this same time I was talking to a member of a SWAT unit from another county. They had just returned from a course that taught you to move and shoot. I don't recall If all the different drills were named maybe so but you were taught to run toward the target at an angle shooting as you approuched. This seemed more in line to what I seemed to do naturally when shot at, (at least the running part).

Simunitions leave out the element of surprise and the real shock of being shot at. It also does not cover the decision to shoot or not shoot realisticly turning it into an expensive paintball game. That has been identified and now instructors are starting to run people through the course to where sometimes you shoot and sometimes you don't. This is getting closer to the real thing. American handgun fighting is recognized by the world as a martial art. Open thinking and the continuance to learn will only make it better.
Jim

 

[Sweatnbullets]

The integration of shooting techniques

Very well said my friend! I have been lucky enough to have followed 7677 teachings since 2002 and finally train with him about a year ago. I sought him out because his teachings were right in line with what I thought a fighting system should entail.

I've been headed this direction for a while now and the integration is working out perfectly for me. I have integrate Modern Techniques, Isoceles, Fairbairn/Sykes/Applegate pointshooting, Quick kill, and Quick fire all into one integrated system.

I have zero stance, grip, position, drawstroke, movement type, or movement direction dependency. It is all simply shooting to me. I am as well rounded as I could ever imagine that I could be. The fluid integration is what has made this all possible.

I have trained to be able to get hits anywhere along my draw....to any direction....one handed or two....with whatever movement is necessary. The integraton that 7677 is talking about makes this possible.

In the past, I have trained in systems that were stance, grip, position, drawstroke, movement type, or movement direction dependent. I would highly recommend that everyone not except the physical limitations that others have set down. Find out what you are physically capable of. Develop your own system, through integration, that works best for you.

Now, I am not saying "do not train in this or do not train in that." I am saying to integrate all of your skills into a system that is absolutly well rounded and versatile.

Nice subject 7677!

 

[SkyGuy]

I also what to take a minute to apologize to D.R. Middlebrooks for the path the Fist-Fire thread went down since I had a part in it. Potential students should be able to look at his system objectively and that didn't happen.

You were more than polite to him....and his posts never said much more about his system than how 'great' it is.
I said more in that thread about common sense self defense technique and I'm not selling anything.

I have been asked by several members here to post more information on the system I use.

So, post more information....or is it just 'integration of shooting techniques and FoF training'?

Shouldn't defensive shooting/training include instinctive reaction training? Many 'brand' trainers don't train in accordance with one's instinctive reactions, rather they promote over-practiced trick shooting or some less than logical, defensive shooting technique.

In decent light and out to 20ft or so, I prefer the silhouette - metal on meat – aiming style.
It's uncomplicated and trains one in their 'actual reactive response'. It uses instinctive threat focused, binocular/central vision to superimpose the gun on the target.

This system clearly makes sense because it mimics the natural instinctive reactions one 'will' adopt in a nervous system overload, fight or flight encounter.
Plus, it's a moderately low maintenance technique because it's simple, intuitive and simulates the natural physical and mental responses to serious fright. I say, train that way because you 'will' fight that way.

No counter intuitive aiming to remember........no complex tool box choices or thought processes.
Just basics because basics will rule.

Simple tactics such as movement, cover, retention, etc are also needed additional training assets. But, beyond the simple tactics it becomes either gaming, professional use or......business.

If I were a 'defensive' shooting coach, I'd say:

Train to move diagonally first and fast.
Shoot with both eyes open from the instinctive combat crouch (not a squat).....square up toward threat, the instinctive forward lean will also help stabilize shooter's platform.

Train in both isosceles and one-handed because one's natural tendency is to push arms forward toward threat...in a natural extension, not in locked elbows.

Faster moving shooters naturally default to blading and shooting one handed…....definitely train at one handed shooting.

Etc.
.

 

[7677]

Skyguy,

I prefer the silhouette - metal on meat – aiming style.

This just one phase of the sight continuum. There are time when metal on meat is going not going to be fast enough. We must remember that as the distance increases so does the amount of visual input to make it.

The guide....the sight continuum,

The "Sight Continuum" is merely a guide to which shooting technique you will use in a deadly force situation.

I came up with the sight continuum to explain when to use point shooting and when to use the sights by the urgency of making shot and the distance involved. Other things like movement, and the use of cover are other considerations that play a part in the sight continuum.

The final piece of sight continuum came to me one day while watching simunitions training and I noticed that people A) do as they were trained or B) spray and prey or C) nothing (until to late). Well sometimes people do what they were trained a little to well. No one every told them that they could go from the mind set of I’m going to draw and take a aimed shot to of oh crap I need to make the shot right now. When this happened most shooters didn’t use point shooting and make the shot but rushed the draw stroke which usually threw the gun even more off target and then it took them even longer to recover their sight picture and by this time you could play connect the dots on them.

The distance which most handgun fights take place at are within 10 feet and the victim is usually reacting to the attacker which further puts them behind the reactionary curve. The only way I have found to off set the attackers advantage is for the victim to move, draw and fire the second the gun comes on target and continue to zipper up the body until the attacker is down.

The "Sight Continuum" starts with "hip shooting" and continues to the use of sights and this give a person the ability to shoot at any point within their draw stoke one hand or two handed. In combat, I did not have to think about which method I would use as it just came to me.

The body is amazing as if you keep the weapon with the centerline of the body or the nose with the gun in the peripheral vision the mind will determine when to take the shot. All you have to do is focus on the spot you intend to hit. Your subconscious mind will worry about the alignment of the gun and the spot your focusing on. This is especially useful while shooting and moving fast.

When I attempt to move and use aimed shooting, I have found that if I attempt to aim to make the same shot it slows me down as I have to consciously think about the front sight, the target, and when to fire. This is the reason so many schools teach the groucho walk. While I'm in the process of trying to align my front sight on the target, I tend to slow down my movement in order to keep the front sight from bouncing and begin to get tunnel vision on the front sight.

The shooter’s focus should be on the target with their surrounding in their peripheral vision not on the front sight. Continual focusing on the front sight while moving leads to tunnel vision. Furthermore, on the squared range, there are usually no obstructions to trip over but in the real world there are many hazards one can find themselves negotiating in the middle of a gunfight.

In point shooting, the index is very important just as it is with sighted shooting. The index gets the gun on target and with point shooting eye/hand coordination places the bullet on the same spot that the eyes are focused on and with sighted shooting the index gets the gun on target and the gun is brought a little further up to the point where the eyes pick up the sights and verify the gun is on target. As the distance increases, the effectiveness of indexing and eye/hand coordination decreases.

From 0 to 3 feet, or at what is commonly referred to as bad breathe distance, a retention techniques needs to be employed. These Techniques rely heavily on body index with very little to no hand/eye coordination.

Indexing will only take you so far and with all point shooting techniques there still needs to be some degree of hand to eye coordination. The further away the target is from the shooter the shooter goes from relying on indexing and more to the ability of putting rounds on the spot where the eyes are focused on. It is similar to throwing a punch but only at an increased distance. Your fist is replaced by bullets. Index alone will get hits on the target out to 10 yards however you want your point of focus and your point aim to be on the same point (hand/eye coordination).

From 0 to 3 yards, most people use techniques similar to Fairbairn's "Half Hip". With the Half Hip position, I use my body's centerline as an index with my gun in my peripheral vision. This technique relies on both body index and hand/eye coordination.

For extreme close quarter gun fights with “half hip” the shooter needs to explode off the line. The draw of the weapon occurs while the support arm forearm is driven into the attacker throat. The shooter dives the attacker back and zippers up the attackers body.

From 5 to 10 yards, I use either in one handed or two-handed point shooting, which will be under the line of sight, I use my nose as the index. The person uses the index to get the gun on target and the eye/hand coordination places the on the spot where the eyes are focused on.

NOTE: The above yard estimates are not absolute and will change do to shooter and/or target movement.

Aimed shooting comes at the end of my sighting continuum. Why because I can start to draw my weapon and anywhere in the steps of my draw I can point shoot off of body index/eye hand coordination or I can continue to bring the weapon up to eye level and make a precision shot. The steps of the draw that I use are the same with point shooting as with sighted shooting. Time (the urgency of making the shot) combined with distance will determine which method I use in the Sight Continuum.

In closing, I'm not exclusively a "Point Shooter" or a "Sighted Shooter" I simply use whatever method will allow me to go home at the end of the night.

 

[brownie0486]

Thats got to be one of the best explanations of the mindset behind the defensive sighting/shooting continuum skills necessary to go home at the end of the day I've seen from you 7677.

You've explained your sight continuum before elsewhere and perhaps here, but the above really puts it all together.

Brownie

 

[Sweatnbullets]

What is surprising, is how simple shooting is once you have integrated all of this and how easy it is to integrate. Some will say that it is too complicted and does not follow the KISS principle...... this is absolutely incorrect!

Once you are at the level of simply shooting in a well rounded and fluid manner, shooting the handgun just becomes an extention of your real weapon....your mind.

"If you can see it, you can hit it." The whole concept of hand/eye cordination off of your visual centerline, is an amazingly simple and effective concept. All of the minutia that surrounds so many different "dependent" systems becomes unnecessary and overly complicated in comparison.

This is something that can take a day or two to put together (if you have the fundamentals of shooting down). The guys that teach it will never become rich. They simply show you and you will own the concept.

I would be proof of that.

 

[shooter503]

Allelujah.

At last there is beginning to be agreement on something as obvious as the "continuum" idea. It is still a shame that we have to give such a simple concept a fancy name. It's simple, simple, simple. Learn a range of shooting techniques and then use the one most appropriate to the situation. This is just like a tennis player using a fore-hand or back-hand and a golfer choosing the appropriate club and technique.

Which technique you use in a particular situation will eventually become a matter of experience and instinct for the individual shooter. A tennis player does not analyse the stroke to be used. There are no hard-and-fast rules on the technique to be used based on distance and other conditions. Individual shooter skill levels will vary, ambient conditions will vary.

At the risk of being overly dramatic it is eventually like "using the Force".

 

[SkyGuy]

Which technique you use in a particular situation will eventually become a matter of experience and instinct for the individual shooter.

I don't buy into that 'pick a tool in the toolbox' training for real life fight or flight encounters.
Over-practiced proprietary techniques and tools are fine for gun games, FoF training scenarios and for instructors who sell their 'brand' of diversity in gunfighting.
But the bottom line is that everyone should train in the way they will fight in the real deal; instinctively.

When fight or flight hits and your heartbeat is 180 and rising, you will not have peripheral vision, you will not have fine motor skills, you'll not hear much, time perception slows and you 'will' revert to instinct....not to selecting an appropriate technique. It'll be all over in mere seconds.

You will crouch, square to the threat, focus with binocular/tunnel vision, your arms will extend in an effort to push the threat away, you will put metal on meat, you'll fiercely grip your weapon and jerk the trigger in multiple shots.

Learn simple gun/hand strikes. Train to move diagonally first and fast. Train in both isosceles and one-handed.
Extend arm/s, put metal on meat, shoot with both eyes open from the instinctive combat crouch (not a squat).....square up toward the threat.

In fight or flight 'basics' rule. There are mitigators, but that's how you should train because that's how you'll fight.

Etc.
.

 

[Jeff White]

skyguy,
The local MTU once had an instinctive shooting course. The premise was that you should be trained the way you'll fight, just like you said. There was a lot of one handed shooting etc. The problem is that if you train on the proper techniques your instinctive training is a waste of time, because you are trying to unlearn muscle memory built in through thousands of repetitions. They only held that class once.

If you train on any method, you will default to using that method under stress. You don't rise to the occasion, but you default to your training. There is nothing wrong with training to perform a task in any way. If you've trained on it enough, you will perform it that way under stress. That's why you train.

A person can be innoculated against stress. The best soldiers and cops in the world, the ones who are the go to guys when the chips are down, don't recognize that they will suddenly forget all their training under stress and train to do those things they think they'll do when stress incapacitates them, they train very hard on the basics. It works. I've seen it firsthand in the Army and in police work. There are techniques one can use to mitigate stress and lower their heart rate, respiration and blood pressure. If your theory was true, it would be impossible to do many tasks that are commonplace, such as land a jet aircraft on a carrier.

Simple things like knowing in advance how stress physically effects your body and learning breathing techniques to lower your heartrate and BP work wonders. They do work, I have used them.

Jeff

 

[SkyGuy]

If you've trained on it enough, you will perform it that way under stress. That's why you train.

Agreed.
Training works wonders when the situation is somewhat manageable, somewhat under control or when time is on your side. Training works well in team efforts. Training works in most firefights, clearing, search and destroy, etc. But as the fear of death increases so does the nervous system overload and that is where the instincts rule.

The problem is that if you train on the proper techniques your instinctive training is a waste of time, because you are trying to unlearn muscle memory built in through thousands of repetitions.

And that's why I say train in the basic response mode and not in so many of the brand styles of defensive gun-fighting. Every bit of trained muscle memory and repetition will be there in unison with and to reinforce one's instinctive reactions. There's no psyche conflict.
(I believe strongly in tactics and techniques training such as retention, hand/gun strikes, basic empty hand, cover, etc. These are learned and have their place in combatives and professional work.)

Proof abounds that under nervous system overload 'everyone' defaults to instinctive reactions regardless of ingrained training or experience.

The best trained in the world, although inoculated to high levels of non-threatening stress, are not immune to the mental and physiological symptoms of stress overload. That's why water-boarding works on everyone, every time.
The problem is that 'training' cannot simulate stress overload because everyone knows that it is 'training' and there is no real fear for life or limb. In a real encounter many trained people freeze up or hide when they're freaked out.

And yes, breathing techniques can lower heart rate, but only under certain circumstances and time restraints. That technique is taught to lower heart rate usually before a known upcoming encounter or after action. (breathe in, hold for count, release, etc) For example, a police stop or entry, or planned swat work.
It does not work in spontaneous violent encounters. It does not work in ambushes and hardly works when the adversary has the advantage. Adrenaline rushes, BP goes up, the heart races and you will focus exclusively on the threat you're facing and not range techniques or your toolbox. Throw in chaos, movement, low light/darkness and bullets in the air....and there you are.

Bottom line for me is that it is logical to train in the ways of human default; instinctive reactions. Weaver, peripheral vision sighting, sights only, indexing/proprietary gun handling, etc are fine for goofing around on a range, but they will not be there in the real bad deal.
Instincts 'will' be there, so train that way.
.

 

[brownie0486]

The various techniques and skills found in many training venues should cover a multitude of scenarios.

In a totally surprised attack on your person, one may need to use FAS 1/2 hip [ elbow up/elbow down ], 3/4 hip, Quick Kill hip [ a variant of Elbow up/Elbow down ], the zipper etc. These might be a stand and deliver option also based on whether you have room to move laterally/obliquely or not. These would be used one handed with speed and accuracy at the closer ranges of battle as well.

In other scenario's where you have some time/warning/indication [ that could be a slpit second to several seconds and may include a multitude of scenarios ] where one is not taken totally by surprise and has time to formulate a plan of action based on some situation that is either developing or has developed, other techniques can be called upon [ based on distance and time constraints ] such as compressed ready, quick kill ready, quick fire, quick kill, etc. These might also be stand and deliver or while getting out of a potential kill zone [ also dependant on whether one has room to move in any direction or not ].

The above could also be used one handed or two handed with or without movement all dependant on scenarios evolving and the terrain one found themselves in as well as if one were charged with protecting a spouse/other party with them when the deed goes down.

As there are so many variables to consider we potentially find ourselves in, multitudes of scenarios that ocurr on the streets, one needs to not only know startle responses with a firearm which take into account the body alarm response [ BAR ] under that type of stress, but also other skills that work within the parameters of distance and time well when one has been able to "see" the situation, had time to formulate a plan of action [ even just split seconds of time ], and act with conviction and skills that have been trained and shown to be effective within their ranges of use. Taking advantage of their strengths when the opportunity presents itself to do so.

Not all SD situations start from being totally taken by surprise. As this is the case, one would be prudent to know when and where to make effective use of skills they have trained in. To know and understsand which skills make good use of the BAR, which skills make better use of time and distances when BAR is not a factor through training and forethought/awareness of ones surroundings.

If one were to train only in the BAR skills necessary, one would likely be deficient in other more proficient skills that could have been available to the defender through training. One size does not fit all scenarios, hence the training on many different skills for the many different situations we may find ourselves in.

If I'm being herded into a bank back office by BGs robbing the place, I have to formalize an action that does not entail the BAR at all. If I'm also approaching an area where I see potential threats of bangers, entering a store where they are hanging on the sidewalk heckling/harrasing people, BAR will not be an issue as well. I have time to formulate a response, if I choose to respond at all in these types of scenarios.

One would be very prudent to train in multiples of skills for multiples of scenarios, and through that training understand which skills will be most effective dependant on time and distance constraints. Hence the sight continuum 7677 mentions here.

One should be able to go from BAR startle responses [ reactive ] initially to a more proactive response based on training and their personal skills levels.

Of course, if one has not taken the time, made the effort, spent the financial obligation to acquire these various skills, one does not have them available to use when the multitude/various opportunities arise to do so.

Consequently, we see the training provided by many organizations which cover a multitude of scenarios/situations one may find themselves having to deal with and their respective potential resolutions/solutions to those scenarios. One size does not fit all encounters in the best way. If your own training has not covered anything but sighted fire, you are at a disadvantage in many scenarios. Likewise, if your training has only covered BAR type responses, you are going to be lacking in skills and knowledge of the most effecitve ways to handle anything but those types of situations.

Most instructors are now taking this into account and bringing their students skill which correctly address a multitude of scenarios found in the real world, which is a lot more than just BAR responses. They are discovering there needs to be an integration of shooting skills to cover these variables people find themselves in from time to time.

7677's sight continuum takes into account and suppoirts the need to be well rounded in ones training and skills, to be exposed to as many skills as one can be, so that one is as prepared as possible to deal with the scenarios that play out in our lives from time to time. If you don't have the skills, you can't use them when you would be able to otherwise. It suggests if you only train for BAR type responses, you are lacking in certain skills and techniques which better address potential situations.

Brownie

 

[shooter503]

SkyGuy

Proof abounds that under nervous system overload 'everyone' defaults to instinctive reactions regardless of ingrained training or experience.

I don't know where you find all these proofs. I can assure you that after 40 years of sitting VERY close to situations where "sitting dumb, fat and happy" turns into "Oh S***" in a second that training does kick in.

The point is that it must be the proper training and it must replace all previous training. I have seen situations where a person carried out a perfect drill - unfortunately it was for a situation that was no longer applicable - because his new training had not erased his old training habits. On the other hand I have seen training kick in so well that the participant did not even realize what they had done until the event was over.

Frankly I think you and Brownie are getting way too deep into the "pyschobabble". When the unpremeditated happens you do what you can do based on your personality and training and collapse afterwards.

 

[brownie0486]

shooter503;

When the unpremeditated happens you do what you can do based on your personality and training and collapse afterwards.

Thats precisely what I said above sir.

Lets not forget that training [ and consequently ability ] does affect and will change ones personality to a degree as well.

Brownie

 

[shooter503]

Brownie,

If you ever get to Portland come play on my range. I do equipment development there and I think you will have fun. I have a client about 40 south of Pheonix. How far, in time, is that from your operation?

 

[7677]

I wrote the following on 03-28-2003,

I believe that there is progression of training when teaching survival shooting. It starts with the steps of the draw and master grip, then to how to align the sights and the step of the trigger pull (slack out, front sight, press, release/reset) After the student has mastered the concept of drawing and aiming and hitting the target to the point it becomes a reaction and they do not have to think about it they are ready to start point shooting.

Next, add shooter movement and then both shooter and target movement. Then add tactical considerations such as cutting the pie, use of cover and cutting angles etc. Finally, the final test is to put the student against the trainer in a force on force simulation with simunitions and allow the students to try which tactics and shooting style works best for them.

This part of the training is the most important because various scenarios should tests the students knowledge of when to shoot, when not to shoot and use of proper tactics such as when it is appropriate to use cover, point shoot, and sighted shooting.

The reason I did not go into how I teach point shooting is that I can build on a person’s existing training if need be. I teach new students how to shoot on index points and hand/eye coordination. To build this hand/eye coordination, I run students hundreds of rounds of ammunition until they get their point of focus with the point of impact of their rounds. Almost every shooting style is based on either body or eye indexes. So, by squaring your body and/or head towards the target and thrusting the weapon forward, you will get hits on the target. However, by using the indexes and eye/hand coordination, you can get hits on the point where you want to hit. For one-handed shooting, which I cover, I teach students to use a convulsive grip. I teach the same draw strokes for point shooting as I use for sighted fire except what is different is the point I start shooting my weapon.

Skyguy,
I understand what you are saying but I think what you are talking about is more individual specific. I have seen people lockup under fire and I’ve seen others immediately start fighting. It always came down to experience and the amount of training they had.

 

[brownie0486]

I'm 20 or so miles east of Phoenix.

Thanks for the invite, I may get up that way one day. If you get down my way, let me know, you can stay here with myself anytime.

Brownie

 

[shooter503]

Ditto.

I would offer you my range for a course but I think that much shooting would upset the neighbours. Would like to have you test the equipment though.

 

[brownie0486]

I'm sure we could give the equipment a serious workout sir.

Brownie

 

[JMusic]

Jeff stated: A person can be innoculated against stress.

Absolutely! The guys I worked with were like poker players. Never have I experienced or seen what Skyguy has been repeatedly saying. In fact lets use the words stress, fear, or startle. After awhile some people tend to crave it not recoil or freeze from it.

7677 stated: I believe there is a progression of training when teaching survival shooting. It starts with the draw, grip then how to align the sights.

Agreed. I was an instictive shooter long before having any survival training. The survival training taught me how to draw quickly. Without that I would not have survived some encounters that I ran into later.

Jeff stated: That they once had an instinctive training course and that it failed because people defaulted back to there original practice.

Don't doubt it. If you do not practice instinctive shooting you will not use it, just as anything else. How many can still speak the foriegn language they learned in high school?

503 thinks its being over complicated.

I guess I do too, but is it being over complicated trying to explain it on a key board? I've taken some of the courses and they sure were not that complicated to do or understand. The shooting sport as a whole is over complicated if you read about it. Ever read about long range shooting? I have and still don't know what the hell their talking about, yet I was one of the better varmitt hunters in our area, making laser measured 400 - 550 yd shots. I learned to manage my startle responce as a youngster by pointing my longgun at the noise and knocking the safety off during small game hunting. I learned to do the same with a pistol during PPC training. As 7677 stated he can build upon training and experiences as any good trainer should. What it boils down to me is what I think works and practicing.

I LIKE unsighted fire and sighted fire, but I have practiced both all my life, at the range and in the field. I have utilized both without conflict or decision, one blending naturally into the other, but again thats how I practice.
Jim

 

[Sweatnbullets]

I guess I do too, but is it being over complicated trying to explain it on a key board? I've taken some of the courses and they sure were not that complicated to do or understand. The shooting sport as a whole is over complicated if you read about it. Ever read about long range shooting?

Ain't that the truth!

I am often accused of "over complicating things" which is simply not so. What I am guilty of is attempting to put simple concepts into a written form.

Yet, when my students write a review of my course, they often comment on how they learned by "just doing it," "shooting a lot," and "not listening to a bunch of lectures."

This stuff is simple......period!

 

[Kor]

Jeff White's post #10 and Brownie0486's post #12 bring up a question about body alarm response(BAR) and scenarios:

Given that BAR is not absolutely inevitable, but rather dependent upon the scenario at hand and the level of a given individual's training - would it be fair to say that non-LEO/non-military persons are more likely to be involved in DEFENSIVE scenarios that would cause BAR(i.e. store robbery, mugging, car-jacking, forcible sexual assault, home invasion, road-rage, escalated fisticuffs, which ipso facto occur at very close-range)? As opposed to LEO or military personnel who can expect to be involved in both DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE situations, from close-range, BAR-causing scenarios(building-searches, searching/cuffing violent suspects) as well as scenarios which may not necessarily cause BAR(hostage-rescue shots, pre-planned raids, felony car-stops)?

Could we then say that, although a well-rounded shooter ought to be proficient in all aspects of the shooting continuum, from unsighted to sighted to "non-conventional aiming," the "civilian shooter" training for REACTIVE SELF-DEFENSE(as opposed to "offensively-oriented" LE/military drills/tactics) should focus primarily on instinctive close-range unsighted shooting and non-conventional aiming techniques?

And that, while a "civilian shooter" ought to be prepared and train for the possibility of a longer-ranged or more-precise(hostage-rescue/perp behind cover/head) shot, such situations are not very likely to arise in a truly DEFENSIVE scenario, and should thus remain a secondary focus?

And, conversely, could we say that LE and military shooters who are more likely to become involved in PRO-ACTIVE, OFFENSIVE actions than are "civilians," ought to train for primary proficiency in accurate sighted shooting(with a strong secondary emphasis on the unsighted and non-conventional aiming side of the continuum), and also to recognize, master and overcome BAR?

(BTW, my own personal background is as a classic-Modern Technique sighted shooter-cum-NRA Instructor, who has come to appreciate point-shooting and non-conventional "flash sight pictures" through IDPA competition...and also as a state CCW instructor, who has a pretty good idea of what would happen in court if I or one of my students admitted that they pulled the trigger without aiming with their sights, and subsequently shot an innocent bystander. )

 

[brownie0486]

also as a state CCW instructor, who has a pretty good idea of what would happen in court if I or one of my students admitted that they pulled the trigger without aiming with their sights, and subsequently shot an innocent bystander

This question has been addressed before on other forums, and even perhaps here as well in the past. In a recent event in the national news, several police fired something like 70+ rds at a person and missed using their trained sights shooting something like 40 times. Not one of those rounds connected with an innocent bystander. The equation/question has always seemed over rated relative chances of a stray round happening to connect with an innocent to begin with IMO.

I have answered in the past to this, but how would anyone know how you missed to hit another not intended innocent? No one would assume you shot with anything but sights, certainly not a DA, an LEO, or prosecutor. Not with all of the evidence of past decades of police missing something in the order of 75% of the time on the streets historically.

Who would know enough to question the shooter on whether they used their sights or not. Then we have the documented cases of officers trained in sightd fire admitting after action that they didn't remember using or seeing their sights at all and still fired their weapons and experienced misses in those actions. None have been charged with negligence in not using their sights as trained that I'm aware of. No civil suits by the perps relatives that the officer was negiligent in shooting their relative without using the sights and thats why the perp expired. With todays litigious mentality, an admission by any of the officers in the past that they didn't use/see their sights has not brought legal action either criminally or civilally against them for any reason.

If you are smart, you answer the questions out to you only with your atty present after-action. You do not volunteer information, and if that is followed as it should be, the question would have to be asked specifically if you used your sights, if you tried to use your sights, if you remember using your sights, etc for this to even be contended with by your atty.

How could anyone prove otherwise what form of "aiming" the weapon you used at the exact moment you fired the gun but yourself? Nothing is presumed/assumed here, but then the normal reaction the DA, prosecutor will likely work with is that you are just another unfortunate person who missed under the stress of a life and death encounter, missed like statistics show the cops miss 3/4 of the time on the streets. Cops who are presumed to have better training, more practice, and more familiarity with dealing with life and death decisions on the streets compared to yourself, the "normal" ccw civilian.

Relative BAR responses, all people who carry a gun in any capacity should have both BAR startle responses and proactive responses IMO. One is not mutually exclusive of the other based on job description [ LE or Mils ], or civilians.

Everyone can be startled and have to react under BAR, and everyone also may and likely can become proactive in defense of their person after the initial contact/response with the correct training and mindset or through awareness of their surroundings and things about to go south where a person has any time to formulate a plan of action where BAR does not enter the equation with the advent of being aware of what is about to happen, or what they are going to have to do to solve a situation if it goes south at that time.

Brownie

 

[psychophipps]

As someone who has studied multiple martial art styles, this integration is true from everywhere you train. You can learn a trick or tool from just about anywhere, wether it goes into your "A" box for more focus for self-defense use or your "B" box as a trick to try again for kicks n' grins is up to you.

You can't help but subconsciously melt the techniques you learn from different places,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

 

[Kor]

Relative BAR responses, all people who carry a gun in any capacity should have both BAR startle responses and proactive responses IMO. One is not mutually exclusive of the other based on job description [ LE or Mils ], or civilians.

Agreed - but to clarify, my question was intended NOT to imply exclusivity in one method or another for LE/military training vs. civilian training, but to address PRIMARY and SECONDARY emphases based on the probability of a close-range surprise/startle encounter and subsequent BAR for a civilian. In other words, since civilian self-defense scenarios are PROBABLY(but NOT EXCLUSIVELY) going to involve both close range and BAR, should "civilian self-defense shooting training" emphasize instinctive shooting FIRST(but not exclusively) and sighted shooting SECOND(but not totally ignored)?

And, in other words, since LE/military shooters may expect to be involved in MORE LONGER-RANGED and/or PRO-ACTIVE OFFENSIVE situations than civilians(IN ADDITION TO CLOSE-RANGE, DEFENSIVE situations), should their training then focus PRIMARILY(but again, NOT EXCLUSIVELY) on accurate sighted fire and overcoming BAR, and SECONDARILY(again, not totally ignoring) on instinctive close-range shooting?

If you are smart, you answer the questions out to you only with your atty present after-action. You do not volunteer information, and if that is followed as it should be, the question would have to be asked specifically if you used your sights, if you tried to use your sights, if you remember using your sights, etc for this to even be contended with by your atty.

Again, agreed - the point I would have wanted to make is that, while unsighted shooting may have been what was necessary to survive in a given situation, specifically admitting to have done so MIGHT(or might not) become an avenue of attack in either a criminal trial or a civil lawsuit. And, of course, although one SHOULD NOT be too frank and forthcoming without having your attorney present, it is still possible that one might blurt out such an admission in the immediate aftermath of a shooting without one's wits in proper order, or without realizing that a patrolman or detective is within earshot - in other words, even though you may know better than to say anything without your lawyer, you might just do it anyway.

Now, as a CCW instructor, I have to teach what the state requires to be taught, which is aimed sighted fire - if I were to teach instinctive shooting to CCW students, it would have to be supplementary, and in addition to, the mandated curriculum. I can easily foresee a less-experienced, less-motivated, easily-confused CCW student(and yes, if one teaches enough students in enough classes, one will encounter a few individuals like this) falling into the same fallacy of "unsighted shooting ONLY" instead of "unsighted AND sighted shooting," and perhaps implicating me and my training methods in his shooting situation. Although I could explain and defend my training methods in court, given proper preparation and competent counsel on my part, I would much prefer not to deal with that possibility - hence, I will teach according to the state's lesson plan, and let the state defend it's own curriculum if it comes to that.

I was actually a bit surprised to see such a verbose and emphatic response to what I intended to be a parenthetical expository remark, versus only two paragraphs addressing the main thrust of my post - perhaps, if I had known I was going to step on sore toes, I would have tried to choose my words better.