7677
Member
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.
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.