When is a new technique worth adopting and how do you know it's the real deal?

[Jeff White]

A couple of threads got me thinking about new techniques and fads in the industry. In some areas, there really isn't much new under the sun, but every now and then something new that's worthwhile comes along.

How many people here go to a school, see a new technique and decide that it's worth changing everything they do for?

An example is several years back our department rangemaster came back from an inservice training session and decreed that no officer will ever use the slide stop to release the slide again. Dept issue was S&W 5906 at the time. Many of the officers had always used the slide stop having been trained that way for 20 or more years. My contention was that if the technique worked for them and they weren't involved in teaching where they had to manipulate many different semi-auto pistols, it was a waste of their time to try to force them to adopt the new better method. A couple years later this became a moot point when we switched to Glock 21s and many could no longer reach the slide stop.

The question is; How do you decide when a new technique is so good, it's worth the 100s of hours of training time it's going to take you to learn it instinctively?

Jeff

 

[El Tejon]

I use the "El Tejon DOH! test".

If I'm shown a technique and if El Tejon is able to perform it correctly the first time through, I will shout out "DOH!" and immediately adapt it as my own and later write about what a genius I am [snicker].

I am a big believer in simplicity in fighting. (I mean, it's just me and my limited mental capacity out there, no Ninjas of Death watchin my back). If a particular drill involves fewer manipulations, I will adapt it.

 

[sanchezero]

Good one, Jeff. Hard too.

First, I'd have to say that most of the furiously debated techniques of recent memory don't fall into that category of 100s of hrs of training.

For example, sul a hot topic these past coupla days. I can't imagine someone needing more than 45 seconds with that technique before they have it pretty much dialed. All the more reason it's so bizarre to hear peope bash it.

For the more demanding techniques like actual shooting platforms, hmmm. I recently had to make a decision about that. I've been a freestyle/mod iso guy for a while now, but I went to TSA to take a Fistfire class b/c I was interested in all the controversy, and DR is obviously a talented shooter.

Fistfire is a radical departure from my platform, but I commited to using it exclusively for a month, appx 2500 rnds. In the end, I kinda swiped some stuff from it and tweaked my old platform a bit, but I'm no fistfire shooter.

I'll use this experience as a template for my overly wordy answer...

I think the 1st thing that needs to happen is you need to be convinced that the technique has merit. It needs to be explained clearly and demonstrated with competence. Fistfire is certainly clear, and the instructors are excellent shooters.

2nd, or maybe an addendum to the 1st, is that the technique must be repeatable. There need to be other people out there that have success with it; I'm not willing to be some guy's guinea pig. Fistfire has a good track record both in competition and in FOF training. I dunno if there've been any 'real' shoots with it, but that doesn't concern me.

Once these criterea have been established then I think you can seriously give your attention to the new ideas.

The technique must not be overly complicated. This is certainly a bit subjective as one who's only background is WW2 pointshooting will have a different idea of what complicated is than a competitive IPSC shooter from AZ. In any case, the technique needs to be simple enough that you can get a grasp on its basics quickly. Otherwise you won't give it enough attention to consider it seriously. DR had us rapidly shooting 8" circles from a retention position at about 5yds about 10 min after we picked up our guns. Of course, one cannot discount the 2-3 hrs of lecture on indexing etc.

The technique needs to either be very simple and specialized or very versatile. Simple and specialized is sul. It's not an all purpose position, but it's terrifically simple, so it doesn't matter. Your platform needs to be able to handle most, if not all of your shooting needs. If it takes concerted effort to learn and develop but it's only good for shooting from the weakside of a barricade in good light with a single stack gun loaded with bunnyfart ammo and mercury needs to be in a lunar house after the winter solstice for you to get your hits...well, it's probably been a waste of your time. I shot FF in IDPA with mixed success. I used it in FOF with pretty good success. Both of these I shot from lotsa positions and at lotsa ranges and the techniques worked fine if I didn't screw up. Of course, the same can be said for my other platform, especially since I screw up alot .

Finally, I think you have to like the technique. It has to appeal to you in a kinesthetic sense; it must feel good. This is ultimately why I bagged FF. I never got to like the grip. Everything else was great, and if I'd resolved the grip issue, I'd be preaching the gospel of DR Middlebrooks right now.

I think to go thru this evaluation, you should probably put in 12-20 hrs of focus practice AFTER your instruction and spread over at least 14 days to objectively evaluate a technique you've determined has merit. This is just an educated guesstimate as far as time goes, but I think it gives you the time needed to settle into an idea and see if it will fit you.

Of course, there are gonna be plenty of things that come along that don't make it thru the intial stages of the evaluation. October's P&S is a perfect example. I feel qualified to say this as I'm probably one of the few peole dumb enough to have actually tested this: 500rnds and a little over 8hrs of shooting and FOF drills later and I can assuredly say: "Total crap."

CAR is an example of something that may have merit, but there are a coupla fundamental things they do that I just can't get past. The biggest being taking a stance so bladed that they feel it's best to actually switch hands to shoot a different direction. I've never trained in CAR and probably won't. I'm not qualified to say it sucks or is good. That just turns me off.

If anyone actually reads all of this, well, I can only surmise there's nothing good on TV.

 

[dave3006]

You won't know it works for real until you have tested it against a living, breathing, RESISTING opponent. ie... airsoft, simunitions, paintball ect... Until then, it is just theory.

I have been to over ten shooting schools in the last decade. I have heard Ad nauseum the need to use your front sight always at all times. I have drilled this and pretty much accepted it as true.

Today, at paintball in an urban setting field, I ran back to a "safe" area in the rear towards the end of the game. Literally, 4 feet from me was a player on the other side. We were both surprized.

Here is what happened: Both of us were firing with one hand and rapidly backing up. My entire focus was on him, not my weapon. I know paintball guns don't have sights. But, there is no way I would have had the time or the mindset to use them. Human nature. Fortunately, I got him first. In real life, he probably would have lived long enough to shoot me back and we both would have died.

I have shot handguns since I was 7 years old. The last time I went to a shooting school class, we had a competition shooting steel. There were cops, bodyguards, wanna be military guys ect.. I cleaned up and won out of 50 guys. I know how to use my sites.

 

[fastbolt]

I'm not sure there's a definitive answer to this question, that fits everyone's needs, anyway ... let alone a simple one.

Bottom line? It's a strange & unpredictable, synergistic combination of operator knowledge, skills, mental & emotional state, ability to function well under REAL stress, equipment functionality & ergonomics, and probably some indefinable attributes (can anybody say "luck"?) ... that create the best chance for "success" in the real world.

You know the place I mean ... where the rubber meets the road.

There ARE some thoughts I've had over the years, though, whenever someone comes back from some High-Speed/Low-Drag school and tries to reinvent the wheel yet again ...

First, just because some instructor likes it, and can do it well, doesn't mean it intrinsically has merit.

Some very attentive & eager students can simply fail to recognize and grasp important details that can result in something completely differrent being brought back home. Sometimes this is intentional, with the best of intentions to "improve" upon something neat & new, and sometimes it's simply the way different people see things differently. Think "rumor control" and how information is ALWAYS accurately repeated ... NOT.

Some instructors are "technicians", even if once upon a time they "went there & did that" ... and are as capable of later learning bad skills and habits as anyone else.

Just because familiarity can breed contempt, complacency and lessened respect for something ... especially a skills "technique" ... doesn't mean it's necessarily the case.

"New" can sell, while "old" and "available anywhere" doesn't necessarily draw either students, or money ... Insert words such as "TACTICAL", "Advanced", "COMBAT", etc., etc. and it can be resold all over again.

Teaching to the "lowest common denominator" of student is often successful ... and that's exactly the level of information everyone brings home ...

Different people, different "jobs" (L/E vs. Civilian students), different learning goals and objectives, different weapons, different physical abilities of folks ... can all result in different applications of some technical skills, and affect how these things may be taught.

On the other hand ... Half a dozen students may give half a dozen different reviews of what was taught, even if the subject matter was presented to all of them at the same time. Who got it "right"? And what's "right"?

We've had the technological ability to develop tools that throw lead rocks, powered by a deflagration of some powered propellant, for more than a couple of hundred years now ... While the technology has improved rather dramatically, the reason for the "need", and the physical abilities potential of the "users", haven't really changed all that much ...

New techniques require PROPER repetition in order to be accepted into the training skills "databank" ... think muscle memory, and the body's ability to develop "new" neurological pathways after a reasonable amount of intentional physical repetition.

On the other hand, diligently practicing something incorrectly ... such as an improperly performed technique ... can also, unfortunately, result in success ... at "perfecting" the improperly performed technique. One step forward and 3 steps back ... I've worked with a few folks that practiced their less desirable habits or techniques, and got better at doing them wrong. What price success?

I could go on & on ... but my wordiness is boring ... even to me ... and everybody else here can offer endless versions of similar thoughts.

A couple of last thoughts, though ...

I've also seen some folks return from an outside school and become firmly against using the slide stop to release the slide after reloading. Ditto while training new "lateral" cops from another agency, and one where they were using a weapon which lacked a slide-mounted decocking lever ...

After the first several instances of them releasing the slide using an overhand slide grasp ... and engage the slide-mounted safety, resulting in some unanticipated peace & quiet on the firing line ... we revisit their physical technique in light of how their previous training MIGHT conflict with their current issued safety equipment. Of course, we've also seen instances where the technique was simply performed WRONG in the first place, and it resulted in the shooter sweeping their support hand with their muzzle after the weapon was reloaded and ready to fire.

There are several ways to get to the same destination, and sometimes not every technique may prove to be best-suited to every shooter and circumstance. Good instructors can recognize instances where some lattitude can be allowed in order to best suit the training to the individual student. Sometimes, as "students", even instructors ... or other knowledgeable and well trained shooters ... we may be too intimately involved with the problem to see the best solution. Having an "external" instructor's viewpoint is sometimes not only beneficial, but necessary, in order to properly diagnose and evaluate the performance of a technique ... assuming the technique is "worth" performing.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Rob Pincus]

IMO, you should practice a technique and begin real T&E under applicable circumstances after you understand it. Note that I have implemented many techniques into training over the years that I really didn't "like" right off the bat. Some stayed, some left... based on their viability. The important thing before implementing them was UNDERSTANDING them as completely as possible. This means the background, the rationale, the technical aspects, etc.... I don't care who introduces me to a technique or whether or not the Super Friends are teaching it at the Justice League, but I do want to have a grasp of it before I consider passing judgement.

With that said, actually adopting a technique should depend on the results of your training T&E. If you are training realistically, you should figure out pretty quick if you're on track for something good. One of the biggest problems I have when I go to teach for certain groups is their dogmatic attachment to techniques that we see fail time & time again under realistic situations. For that reason, I really don't consider anything that I do sacred... everything is open to development and most things are considered for implementation.

 

[twoblink]

I'm a nerd, and so when I took Boston's class, I kept asking why a technique was better, and if the arguement was logical, and it (like E.T.) passed the simplicity test, then I'll adopt it.

Occam's Razor makes my decisions... "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas."
"Plurality should not be posited without necessity"

Or roughly translated into modern english, don't make it any more complicated than it needs to be..

Or the better translation I like.. All things being equal, the simplier one is usually the better answer..

 

[Jake 98c/11b]

It is a good basic question and I think there is an easy answer. When it works better than the existing technique.

The big variable here is the shooter and their commitment to improve. I really liked Sanchezero's reply but the truth is most people will not put in the time and effort to improve or try a new approch. For those that do great but I think the answer to the question is all based on the motivation of the person involved. Many could improve with very little effort, few ever will.

Other, more personal, things are involved here as well. Many of the factors are subjective, what works for one may not for the next. Some issues are physical and some are mental. Some people do not have the right personality to use a style that requires a certain degree of agression. Kind of like hard and soft styles of martial arts, some people are not physically capable and others are not mentally capable.

Not a well thought out post, just some random thoughts. If you don't like it you can always go back to Sanchezero's bad television.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

My entire focus was on him, not my weapon. I know paintball guns don't have sights. But, there is no way I would have had the time or the mindset to use them. Human nature.

That's what training is for -- to overcome human nature. You practice until you see the sights no matter what is going on. Otherwise you're just reinforcing bad habits. and you'll never see them.

 

[Denny Hansen]

Depends if the technique/drill has any real application for me.

For example, during a Pat Rogers carbine class I could see the very real benefit of using a dump pouch for military/LEO operatives. Generally for me, though, it is equipment I won't use outside of a class environment because I won't have it with me. Besides, if 28 rounds of 60-gr. TAP ammo won't do the job under "civilian" circumstances I already have more problems than I can handle.

OTOH, Louis Awerbuck teaches to reload a shotgun directly into the mag tube of pump guns instead of loading through the ejection port as many of us have been taught. This makes a lot of sense for anyone, because muscle memory has conditioned us to that movement more than the side-load technique.

Overall I think there is no such thing as a "bad" school. If you pick up something for your tool box, great. If you go and find that a technique and won't work for you, at least you have found that out before hand as well.

Denny

 

[Matthew Temkin]

1) It should make sense

2) It should be understood in seconds, fluent in minutes and instinctive within a few hours.

3) It should have passed the test of use in actual combat by avj Joes.

4) It should not require constant, ongoing practice.

4) It should be deadly effective against anyone.

 

[tetleyb]

Will the technique work for me?

Is it necessary?

Can I duplicate it under stress?

If I can't answer yes to any of these questions, I don't/won't look at the technique further. If I can answer yes to all of them, I'll look at it.

However, unless the new technique is something which is saving me an AWFUL lot of time, I probably won't adopt it. The more I attend training classes, the more I find the KISS method works. Like most people here, I've trained alot and I find it very difficult to "reprogram" what I've done 100,000 times.

I just attended a week long shotgun course with Louis Awerbuck. As Denny said, Louis doesn't advocate combat loading a shotgun. However, I do combat load. I won the man on man shootoff, with combat loading. And Louis said, "Why change something which obviously works for him?"

I believe the old addage: If it aint broken, don't fix it.

And, practice what technique works for you, your body type, and what you know, until you can do it in your sleep.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

It must be capable of being integrated into my current toolbox of techniques, i.e., employ similar movements as what I already use.

If a new technique doesn't integrate fluidly with what I'm already doing, it gets sh*tcanned, regardless of how much more effective or efficient it might be, because, for me, it will be neither more effective nor more efficient. The idea, for me at least, is to use common techniques that allow rapid, intuitive transitions (no analytical decisionmaking required).

 

[Mannlicher]

I don't bother. What I do works well for me. I refuse to fall into the 'tactical technique of the week' mess.

 

[Wakal]

Will it work better/stronger/faster/more accurate?

If not...then it is just the "technique of the week" and thus may be ignored. IPSC shooters, as might be expected from the very best shooters on the planet, are a rather technique-dynamic bunch (speaking of the top echelon and the up-and-coming folks, of course, not the hoards of "B-4-Ever" types), willing to try anything new if it will shave time or prove more accurate.

I'll give anything a try on the range with a timer, preferably with my fellow instructors and competitors. Perceptions vary, a timer and a scored target is absolute

In the last three years, I've switched both my grip and stance, and watched my speed and accuracy improve dramatically. I"m now tuning my draw, and working target to target transitions. While I shoot IPSC as a primary love, I'm the match director for the local IDPA matches and SASS/CAS matches...I spend a lot of time at the range, although not as much as I'd like. My bottom line: show me something new, and I'll try it. Learned a cool MP5 trick just a few weeks ago with that attitude



Alex

 

[Smoke]

1) It should make sense

2) It should be understood in seconds, fluent in minutes and instinctive within a few hours.

3) It should have passed the test of use in actual combat by avj Joes.

4) It should not require constant, ongoing practice.

4) It should be deadly effective against anyone.

Let me add....

5.) I must be able to replicate it with ease.

6.) Must use gross motor skills. (I can't do fine motor skills fast when NOT under stress.

7.)It must fit into my other training with no adaptation of practiced skills.

Smoke

 

[TonyB]

I think a good technique is one that you can adapt for your situation..example: I have arthritis in my hands and arms....sometimes a traditional grip or stance won't work for me,so I adapt...I kind of have a isosolese-weaver stance,with a one handed-two handed supportive grip.....one of my fellow IDPA guys said I shoot a handgun like a rifle......not sure what he ment,except that I can't seem to make my weak hand thumb lay down under my strong hand thumb so maybe it looks weird,but it works.....that's where practice comes in..........techniques are great ,if they work FOR YOU.........the problem is someone grabs hold of way of doing things and then everybody else is wrong......I just want to shoot the best way FOR ME........-

 

[El Tejon]

An old Siu Lim adage popped back into my head: a master is one who after studying a thousand techniques is able to perform three at any time to perfection.

Think that applies here as well.