Gunfool-ery

[Brownie]

Okay, got everyone's attention with the title--good!!!!!

GUNFOOL-ERY

Sometimes we've seen or have read something that just does not make any sense at all in the relam of using a handgun for self defense. It might be something that we feel would never work in the real world, something that we thought was just a marketing tool, something that someone changed slightly [ put a new twist on it ] to distinguish themselves from others, based on a technique that already existed that was of value.

I call these types of antics Gunfool-ery. Not gunfu-lery as in Gunfoo or Gunfu [ my gunfu is better than your gunfu ], but something brought to the public with the express purpose of taking the unsuspecting publics money.

Here's what I'd like to know from anyone willing to share their thoughts:

What are some of the most bizzare tactics or techniques you've heard about or seen from trainers in the last couple of decades. It could be something that was thought to be state of the art then and has since been dismissed or replaced, or it can be something that has recently been released, say in the last few years.

Lets expand this post and see if we can get members to relate some experience they had, or something they observed another doing that they would call gunfool-ery as well.

If you could give a brief explanation as to why you think it deserves the title gunfool-ery, that would probably help others formulate an opinion as well.

I'll start.

Read the thread I started on "Thoughts on the In Quartata" (http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141). My explanation to the members here for picking this as my first Gunfool-ery example are as follows:

In Quartata is an ancient technique [ tactic ] used sparingly by fencing masters. It was developed as a way to move out of the kill zone from a direct inline attack upon ones person with a long blade [ that could be foil, epee, bowie knife, etc. ].

Recently the "In Quartata" technique hit the net and has been touted as an effective way to avoid being shot at close range while using ones own firearm. It was shown from 4-5 feet away from the aggressor, and the gun was already in the instrcutors hand. What was demonstrated and sold to the students as "In Quartata" wasn't performed correctly, which makes it something less than effective where "In Quartata" is concerned.

The timing of the correct technique has be perfect or it won't be successful. It is designed as a defense against weapons attacks that are about to stick you on the direct center line.

Another observation was that it was shown where the defender already had the gun in hand. If, instead, we attempt to draw and move to the "In Quartata" to move our centerline in an attempt to avoid an attack, as we probably won't have the gun in hand [ who walks around with a gun in the hand normally ? ], it's my impression the technique either won't work at all or at the very least has an extremely low probability of successfully keeping us from being cut or shot.

In short, a technique that only works reliably after tens of hours of practice, due to the timing involved within the "In Quartata", now transferred to the gun world and touted as something reliable to use with a minimal amount of training against adversaries that are within feet of us and pose major threats.

Do I think a true "In Quartata" would work against a knife attack? Yes, if the gun was already in my hand. Would the technique work in some other application? It could, but in a very limited range or circumstances and only if one really understood the range and timing that would be required to be successful.

As you have noticed, I have not mentioned the instructor in question, nor do I think this is necessary. We are asking for your ideas on Gunfool-ery, not the persons motives or attacks on the person/s who bring these forth to the unsuspecting public for money.

Please follow that lead, unless it is yourself who has some gunfool-ery you developed and wish to share at your own expense.

Regards

[Brownie]

:D

Yes, I've shown some gunfool-ery myself from time to time.

One of the best examples of my own foolishness is showing people how to shoot upside down and backwards using the handgun Quick Kill skills.:rolleyes:

It certainly works, as others who have seen it can attest, but in a very limited manner, if at all. Would someone find themselves in that position to be able to use it? Highly unlikely to say the least.

BTW-I don't charge for this, it's a demonstration. I also do not attempt to explain it as something for the real world of serious self defense.

[JMusic]

The Quartata would be a wepons take away for me. I feel it is much easier to move forward, blade yourself and grab or slap the weapon out of someones hand. I know that is not what you are lookiing for but to try to draw on a BG already primed is a mistake. I frankly have done quit a bit of trick shooting in my life time like fire a shot then shoot the shell out of the air. But still I don't believe that is what you want. As I grow older I distance myself from gimmicks and practice what may be needed in a serious encounter. Some foolery with aq knife has been the splits with another individual, cutting nightcrawlers into with two people competing but thats about it. Sorry. Maybe as some reply it may stimulate a thought.
Jim

[Brownie]

JM,

I started the post so others could relate things they have seen as gunfool-ery [ folly maybe :D ], so don't think your post is irrelevant.

Your stated opinion that "The Quartata would be a weapons take away for me" has me thinking in that realm now, which I had not thought to look at in the same way you have.

I can see the possibilities with the technique, and I'll play with that concept in the near future. Very interesting thought process sir.

Thank you

[JMusic]

I know some here would rather try to draw and shoot when a BG has "the drop on them" I will admit I have the same thoughts if they are not pointing the weapon at me. But once the weapon is out and you can reach it within one step it is quicker to step out of the line of fire in toward one side while simultaneously moving the weapon further away from you. You can do this in a number of ways. There is the grasp where you swing there arm away from them with your right hand while stepping in turning the weapon toward them grasping with the left then pulling it toward you. About 15 % of the time the gun goes off in them or you break their wrist or trigger finger. (One of my favorite) There is a modified version that is riskier but very doable. This technique was demonstrated somewhat by Tom Cruise in "Colateral" to where he simply slapped the gun away then drew and shot. My experience is you can knock the gun out of their hand. There are a slew of others as Roundeye can attest it all depends on training and confidense.
Jim

[Guantes]

JM,
I prefer a Draw Against The Drop method I developed some time ago. Somewhat similar to what Cruise did. It is a parry, a blading of the body, draw and fire three into the susp, total time 1.5 secs. One feature I incorporated was indexing your gun on the elbow of the parrying hand. This prevents you from shooting yourself in the arm.

[JMusic]

Guantes I knew you would take that method. I suspect your a bit faster than I at drawing. I'm gettin old but I probably can still have the gun or at least control of the gun in less than a second. Now you get back more than 6 ft then I'm going to do something different depending on the circumstances. Perhaps BEG:D
Jim

[Roundeyesamurai]

Gunfoolery?

Pressing the trigger with the wrong (middle) finger!

"Combat" instructors who have no "combat" experience!

The notion of a "gun solution" to every combat problem!

"Training" civilians to be "counter-terrorism experts"!

That's just a few examples, I could probably sit here and type until next year, and not cover all of them.

[Guantes]

I don't know if this quite fits, but I will throw it in anyway and if its not I will delete it.
Uncorrected Misconceptions
It might be more of a catagory than a technique. Misconceptions that are not correted by an instructor.

An example would be Force on Force training with Simunitions, Airsoft, etc. While used by many organizations and individuals as a training method with great benefit, it is subject to misconceptions by those with limited experience. These are not caused by the trainer, but the limitation of the method and if not addressed by the trainer are taken by the trainees as fact.

For instance, if two people initiate a (simunitions/airsoft) gunfight, where through attributes one gets say two hits on the other befor he fires and they continue until a finish is called. In the end the quicker person got five hits and his opponent, the slower one got three hits. The implication is that both were nearly equal, with comparable effects. There seems to be no significance given to the two hits or their effects on the slower person prior to his firing, leading to the misconception that getting the first single or mulitple hits is of little importance. By inference this reduces the importance of quick weapon deployment and hits. Granted the limitations are within the method (simunitions/airsoft) which are not able to take these factors into account. This makes it the responsibility of the trainer to make note of such things and explain the significance of them to the trainees.

If this is way off let me know and I will delete it.

[Brownie]

Guantes, it is spot on IMO. Please leave it.

It addresses perfectly that which 7677, Roger, myself and others have discussed at length where FoF and airsofts are the subject.

The firstest with the mostest, yes, I like that, and it blends with the way I have trained for the street for many years.

It also has been at the heart of the EU/ED discussions/arguments on other boards where certain techniques advantage is hits on the other guy first. Your post is succinct and the points well taken by many of us here.

I'd also think about the trainer watching where the hits were made to determine if the exercise should be stopped at that point. The role player could also be instructed to react based on the value of the hits [ though not very scientific ], it would address the issues you raise within the training model and give food for thought to students about what gets the hits on someone first over another technique.

I'm in agreement with your observations and concerns 100%. Good post sir.

[Guantes]

Thank you sir, wilco.

[sbeckman]

For instance, if two people initiate a (simunitions/airsoft) gunfight, where through attributes one gets say two hits on the other befor he fires and they continue until a finish is called. In the end the quicker person got five hits and his opponent, the slower one got three hits. The implication is that both were nearly equal, with comparable effects. There seems to be no significance given to the two hits or their effects on the slower person prior to his firing, leading to the misconception that getting the first single or mulitple hits is of little importance. By inference this reduces the importance of quick weapon deployment and hits. Granted the limitations are within the method (simunitions/airsoft) which are not able to take these factors into account. This makes it the responsibility of the trainer to make note of such things and explain the significance of them to the trainees.

It sounds like what you are saying is that the effect of taking a real hit from a handgun round
is not accurately being taken into account in the 'simulation'. IOW, the guy getting hit
first is not having his shooting, movement, etc. changed in any meaningful way
by taking the hit.

I've not been hit by airsoft or simunitions, so I may be way off base here.

The effect of getting the first hit might be more measurable if the persons
involved were wearing less protection so that the hits cause enough pain that
a flinch or other impairment to their actions would be assured.

I suppose if it was really gonna hurt bad, but not dangerously so, then the simulation would be better.
The training would be taken much more seriously too.

[Guantes]

SB,

In a word YES.
I agree re the less protection where there would be at least a flinch reaction to being hit. Usually heavy shirts are suggested to reduce/eleminate any pain/reaction.

Maybe shirtless confrontations or as Brownie suggested having the trainer/umpire call the exercise when one person is deemed "probably" out of the fight or must continue at half speed due to injuries.

[steve2267]

The effect of getting the first hit might be more measurable if the persons
involved were wearing less protection so that the hits cause enough pain that
a flinch or other impairment to their actions would be assured.

The only viable solution I've heard was the electric vest Guantes made to me off-forum. Envision some sort of vest, that when hit by one of the simulated firearms (whether it be a laser, or plastic or paint pellet) discharges the equivalent of a Taser-like shock into the wearer at the location of impact. Now make the Taser-like shock randomly vary in intensity to simulate that some wounds don't hurt as bad as others for all sorts of physiological and psychological and drug-related reasons.

Another idea would be to have MILES-like gear (similar to that with which the US Military trains) that disables your weapon if you get hit in the torso.

But all these ideas are merely best-guess approximations, engineered simulations of the results of getting shot.


I suppose if it was really gonna hurt bad, but not dangerously so, then the simulation would be better.
The training would be taken much more seriously too.
Better? Perhaps, but it would still, IMO, not eliminate the hosefests into which many, if not most, airsoft simulations devolve.

Airsofts and Simmunitions are fantastic training tools. But they are only one piece of the training puzzle. Putting too much emphasis on the latest gee-whiz-look-what-I've-discovered-nobody-else-is-training-with-this gear results in badly skewed training -- training that could get someone killed because it dismisses, out of hand, techniques or tactics that have stood the test of time and real combat, that people like Bryce and Jordan passwed down to folks like Dave James. Specifically, one trainer dismisses out of hand any sort of stand-and-deliver defense, and instead soley teaches getting off the line of attack. Stand-and-deliver, as most of you probably know, involves putting as many rounds on your attacker as quickly as possible -- that is, hiding behind one's bullets; bonus points for moving, the faster the better, while firing, but the key is to put the hurt on the BG as quickly as possible.

I'm all for getting off my assailant's attack vector. But sometimes it might not be possible, or sometimes I might only be able to take a step or two in one direction. So there very well may be times when hiding behind my bullets is the best choice I can make... but airsoft, as some people teach, leads one to tend to dismiss that choice out of hand. And if the training gear is left to dictate real world tactics, when the gear cannot truly replicate the real world fight (e.g. the effect of getting hit by a 9mm or .45 slug)... then one is going to get badly skewed training.

Airsofts and Simmunitions are valuable training aids -- but they must be used with a clear understanding of their limitations, otherwise they will lead to incorrect conclusions.

[steve2267]

SB,

In a word YES.
I agree re the less protection where there would be at least a flinch reaction to being hit. Usually heavy shirts are suggested to reduce/eleminate any pain/reaction.

Maybe shirtless confrontations or as Brownie suggested having the trainer/umpire call the exercise when one person is deemed "probably" out of the fight or must continue at half speed due to injuries.

Part of the problem with airsofts is that most people either fall into a very competitive, type A personality, or a rather passive, type B personality. The former are at a class to get better, but when put in an airsoft exercise, tend to adopt a win-at-any-cost attitude -- or just a I'm gonna win attitude. These folks will probably tend to ignore any minor pain caused by a plastic BB. The later person is probably at a class to learn how to survive, because maybe they don't want to get robbed again, or a friend was raped... my point being that these people are not super-competitive, and they might stop at the first sting.

Where airsofts would really shine is if everyone can set aside their egos and truly commit themselves to finding / discovering for themselves some truths about personal combat with sidearms. But the setting aside of egos tends to be easier said then done.

IMO, a class would need to have expectations clearly set, and the instructor(s) very closely manage each exercise. And even then, IMO, it makes more sense to have a trained role player playing the part of a BG or assailant rather than simply have students rotating into the BG role.

[Guantes]

Steve,
Spot on with your evaluation. This has always been the biggest problem with role playing scenarios and why we never let two people in training go up against each other, but always against a trainer with no ego involved.

[The Searcher]

My only experiences with force on force training have been negative due to egos and gaming. It has been "cowboys and Indians" played by adults with neater gear. This has led me to believe that the dedicated role player is the only way to go.

I, once again agree with Guantes(shocking! :D) that taking the order the hits occur in out of the equation is silly. Carried to an extreme it could prove that careful aiming and target shooting techniques that score "ten ring" hits are the superior method over various combat shooting techniques that sacrifice some accuracy to gain speed.

[JMusic]

I don't know guys how I feel about this simu training. I've had opertunities but didn't. I don't want to get used to being shot. Its hard to set up a simulation because you know for sure there is going to be a shooting. That is not how it happens. I don't have the answers for this and I am not critisizing but I see this as a game and its not.
Jim

[The Searcher]

Its hard to set up a simulation because you know for sure there is going to be a shooting. That is not how it happens. I don't have the answers for this and I am not critisizing but I see this as a game and its not.
JimYou have ID'ed one of the greatest weaknesses of most training. Due to time constraints "something" has to happen so there is no "bolt out of the blue" element to contend with. I know some places include "no shoot" scenarios. That is excellent but it still doesn't eliminate the problem of knowing that something will happen. You just don't know if the something will require shooting.

[JMusic]

Exactly, but the military guys sem happy with there exercises so there probably is some merit. I just would rather spend my time on awareness and skill set. Now I have been out of LE for a while and in buisness. Buisness likes to use this as a team building technique. Problems I see is time management. You have a limited amount of time instead of pitching a tent in real life. Recon which takes time. And frankly snipers and pro's who can keep them occupied until you have built your stratigy. Buisness tends to higher sports hero's forwhat ever reason at least our company does. I justas soon rather have squirrel hunters to build a tactical team. No ego's , no primodona's, and shooters who no how to hide and stay hid. Thats the training i like to see.
Jim

[Brownie]

Guantes states:

"There seems to be no significance given to the two hits or their effects on the slower person prior to his firing, leading to the misconception that getting the first single or mulitple hits is of little importance. By inference this reduces the importance of quick weapon deployment and hits.

sbeckamn comments:

"It sounds like what you are saying is that the effect of taking a real hit from a handgun round is not accurately being taken into account in the 'simulation'. IOW, the guy getting hit first is not having his shooting, movement, etc. changed in any meaningful way by taking the hit."

To which Guantes responds: "In a word YES."

Steve states:

"Putting too much emphasis on the latest gee-whiz-look-what-I've-discovered-nobody-else-is-training-with-this gear results in badly skewed training -- training that could get someone killed because it dismisses, out of hand, techniques or tactics that have stood the test of time and real combat, that people like Bryce and Jordan passed down to folks"

"And if the training gear is left to dictate real world tactics, when the gear cannot truly replicate the real world fight (e.g. the effect of getting hit by a 9mm or .45 slug)... then one is going to get badly skewed training."

and: "And even then, IMO, it makes more sense to have a trained role player playing the part of a BG or assailant rather than simply have students rotating into the BG role."

Our members comments above and this statement recently put out on the net------

"In fact, if you do not move, regardless of how fast your combat master draw is, you will get shot or stabbed by the other man. Remember that gunfights do not happen at ten yards, but rather ten feet and closer, thus the difference between a 1.0 second draw and a 1.5 second draw are not very great."

Seems some members here have a somewhat different view than the last quoted paragraph above -------

I'd like to hear comments on the differences in mindset between those who believe, like I do, that a faster draw [ through whatever technique gets us there ] is something to strive for and has been proven on the streets by some real world gunfighters versus the thought mindset that the faster draw and first hits really are not very great factors in surviving a gunfight.

My own thoughts would be that the difference in being .50 seconds faster to getting hits would mean at least two, maybe three rounds on the other guy before he would have fired a first shot.

Others thoughts on the difference mindsets we see here?

[JMusic]

My experience is that it is a violent very short encounter. Putting shots into the other person and getting the hell out of Dodge has always been my objectives. You can always crawl back to see the damage. Those who I know who have had this opertunity have a hard time explaining the encounter except some very vivid examples. Those I know who have been shot have limitted memory. The biggest problem I have with a sim is it alows for you to lose and come back. As Jordan said there are no second place winners. Loosing can not be an option. 'That has to be the mind set. That is what you have to plan for. If hitting the BG is not fatal it is at least distratcting and maybe I'm different but my feet just gotta move. This happens in my experience at night. I'm shooting at muzzle flashes as soon as they flash and I'm getting everything I can between me and those flashes.
Jim

[steve2267]

My own thoughts would be that the difference in being .50 seconds faster to getting hits would mean at least two, maybe three rounds on the other guy before he would have fired a first shot.

Others thoughts on the difference mindsets we see here?

I'd like to point out that stand and deliver does not stay rooted in that space forever. Stand during that draw that allows you to put 2-3 rounds on the BG, then MOVE! The only reason I wouldn't move might include:

My family is behind me; moving would unmask them to incoming fire
I can't move due to physical limitations / terrain / obstacles
moving would be WORSE than standing pat -- maybe moving unmasks me to additional fire from more assailants


I remember reading Dave James saying once that he was taught to shoot, then move, then shoot, then move. He might not have been moving while shooting... but after shooting he'd change positions.

In any event, I simply wanted to clarify that standing and delivering that initial 2-3 round burst into the BG does not mean you stay rooted in that spot forever! After you shoot MOVE! (if you are not shooting while moving) unless other considerations prevent you from moving.

[steve2267]

One other comment...

I have formulated the opinion over the past several months after picking Brownie, 7677, Guantes's brains (among others)... that priority one has to be putting rounds on the BG as fast as possible. If movement interferes or slows that response down... then don't move. If I've allowed myself to get caught with my pants down and I've been ambushed... then wasting time trying to move may very much be a moot point, especially if the BG is a good shot.

Hmmm.... let me back off here for a moment. If I'm ambushed, caught with my head up my arse etc... then I'm behind the OODA loop, and I'm behind the reactionary curve. I need to do something that somehow buys me time, allows me to survive. I need to do something that interrupts the BG's OODA loop. If movement does that, great. But it appears to me more and more, after speaking to the likes of 7677, Guantes, Brownies among others... that quick accurate return fire should be priority #1 (usually). If hard cover is a step away... then by all means, move behind cover. Nothing is 100%, set in stone here... but to dismiss hiding behind one's bullets out of hand, or standing and delivering quick, accurate, return killing fire because it doesn't work in Airsoft or Simmunitions seems to me to be the height of folly, or gunfool-ery.

Edited to add: I am very interested in the opinions of those that have BTDT (7677, Brownie, Guantes, Dave James, JMusic, RES? Others?) as to what should priority #1 tend to be? Move all the time? Dancing? From JMusic's post above about these kind of encounters being very short, and very violent... it seems to me that my #1 default priority oughta be putting lead on the other guy as absolutely fast as possible (caveat: that is, if the gun is the best, most appropriate solution to the problem at hand), and anything that interferes with that is a bad idea: movement should not slow down the speed or accuracy of my return fire. Hard cover one step away being a trump card...

[Brownie]

Steve,
Good posts and thought process sir.

Let me be perfectly clear, if I haven't been in the past. I firmly believe and have trained to get rounds on the threat right now, and if I can do that while moving, that is preferrable. Moving might be one step or a hop, skip and jump :D

That option has to be decided based on the distance I'm threatened at, on the fly. In the past, the draw and fire [ getting a good solid hit or two ] and then moving immediately was somehting that just happened.

A wise older man who was a mentor, similiar in mindset to DJ's mentors, taught us not to waste time moving to cover. He was of the impression that you needed to get rounds on the threat right now by having skills that allowed one a fast, really fast draw and hits first. Get to killing as it were, and anything else was wasting time. Now keep in mind we were given some skills that allowed us to hit moving adversaries with ease at any time. They weren't so fortunate, so if they tried dancing on us, they got nailed anyway.

Now, knowing that has been my experience and training and has stood me in good steed with other better men than I am, we [ ITFTS ] are moving into a realm of getting out of the killing zone and making fast hits anywhere from 4 feet to 15 feet out with the same speed of the draw to hits.

I believe it is preferred if one has the skills, and as you have seen, those skills have been developed now and are available to others who want it. I still firmly believe my mentors were correct in their mindset----

Get on em, and get on em right now under fire. "Quickest way to end incoming is to give killing outgoing right now". Training that allows that is of the highest importance to me. The men who adopted that thought process lived through many dangerous encounters. As they were above ground when I was listening, I listened real hard.

Now that we can run out of the killing zone and hit reliably, it is preferrable when appropriate. These new techniques are fast and do not compromise the hits with speed. If they did compromise the mindset given a long time ago, I would not be using them. I see we are not giving up speed to hits and so moving out of the killing zone and hitting is better most of the time. It increases the odds even further to no growing cold before your time.

[Guantes]

Complicated subject, with many possible variables. If it were not everybody would have "the" answer.

Where to begin, especiially being one of the less articulate contributors.

Range: In my opinion is probably the most deciding factor in choosing when to use movement.

Close Range: 0-3 or 4' Here movement (getting off line) is not a factor. This is the range where combatives and the quick draw are king when you have a gun in your face. This is not just opinion, but experience.

Medium Range 5-15' Movement begins to have significance, but still does not supersede quick (including the draw) accurate fire. Movement may help against an inferior opponent, even though everybody says not to train for an lcd opponent. I wonder how many people reading this do not think that with gun in hand they could not hit someone standing 15' away, even if they started to move. How would that ability be affected by bullets flying around or through you.

Long Range 15-????' Here is where movement comes into its own, increasingly as the distance increases. Even these ranges do not erase the value of quick accurate fire. As long as you move without firing, its like someone shooting at a rabbit. When you return fire, it becomes a gunfight. I prefer not to be a rabbit at all or for the least possible time, even if I am moving. Movement may help you stay alive long enough to win, but it will not be the cause of winning, neturalizing the threat will.

I wish I was more of a science scholar. I believe movement (in the context we are using) is one of those thing that is a negative (-) (lack of movement when called for) or even (0) (movement when called for) but never a positive (+). The only positive (+) is what directly eliminates the threat.

Obviously there are many variables that can effect action in a give situation, but the above is what I would consider general guidelines. That's my .02c.

[Brownie]

I wish I had thought of that-- being a rabbit comment, good point

I enjoyed that post immensely. The mindset behind it particularly

[Roundeyesamurai]

Movement is something of an enigmatic subject- one can say "it's a good idea to move", but that's a pretty broad statement. It's kinda like saying "it's a good idea to say something".

Most people think of movement in terms of moving from one point to another- from "point A" to "point B", and so forth. If one is going to move in a straight line, then (usually) the best movement to make is directly forward into the opponent(s).

I've posted in the past, on other forums, about "spontaneously creative movement"- movement which is nonlinear, doesn't fit an (apparent) pattern, and which is dictated by the relationship between persons and objects, rather than being dictated by a pre-set dictum.

I'll use Gloves' example of the gun in the face- conventional movement doesn't apply, to be sure. One can back off and get shot, move to the side and delay getting shot, or move forward and hopefully not get shot.

What sort of movement is available? Move around him. Move past him. There are alot of movements available, which work much better than linear ones.

With the help of my students, I have developed a counter-gun tactic for distances beyond arm's length, out to about 12-13 feet. Unarmed against a gun, at four yards.

How does it work? Quite simply, it's all about spontaneously creative movement.*

When it comes to movement, most people really don't know their potential until they've been shown it. We think in terms of "big" movement- the "fastest" movement from one point to another, crossing the greatest amount of distance in a given time, and so forth. Being able to move unconventionally, in a spontaneous way, and knowing how to conserve movement in such a way as to keep one's body stable, is a fantastic thing to have.

*(Anyone who would like to know about it, feel free to PM/email/call me, but I'm not terribly comfortable posting it on an open forum where anyone can read, whether they be registered or not.)

[sweatnbullets]

Movement is something of an enigmatic subject- one can say "it's a good idea to move", but that's a pretty broad statement. It's kinda like saying "it's a good idea to say something".

Most people think of movement in terms of moving from one point to another- from "point A" to "point B", and so forth. If one is going to move in a straight line, then (usually) the best movement to make is directly forward into the opponent(s).

I've posted in the past, on other forums, about "spontaneously creative movement"- movement which is nonlinear, doesn't fit an (apparent) pattern, and which is dictated by the relationship between persons and objects, rather than being dictated by a pre-set dictum.

I'll use Gloves' example of the gun in the face- conventional movement doesn't apply, to be sure. One can back off and get shot, move to the side and delay getting shot, or move forward and hopefully not get shot.

What sort of movement is available? Move around him. Move past him. There are alot of movements available, which work much better than linear ones.

With the help of my students, I have developed a counter-gun tactic for distances beyond arm's length, out to about 12-13 feet. Unarmed against a gun, at four yards.

How does it work? Quite simply, it's all about spontaneously creative movement.*

When it comes to movement, most people really don't know their potential until they've been shown it. We think in terms of "big" movement- the "fastest" movement from one point to another, crossing the greatest amount of distance in a given time, and so forth. Being able to move unconventionally, in a spontaneous way, and knowing how to conserve movement in such a way as to keep one's body stable, is a fantastic thing to have.

*(Anyone who would like to know about it, feel free to PM/email/call me, but I'm not terribly comfortable posting it on an open forum where anyone can read, whether they be registered or not.)

Very nice RES, I will post some thoughts on this tonight.

I undeleted RES's first post on page one. We talked on the phone last night and I realized that I misunderstood what he was saying.

My apologies, Roger

[Dave James]

I'm not the best one to answer the questions,, but I'll say this,,

Bryce and Askins believed in movement when needed, question is when is it needed,, They both over and over hammered into my head that when fired apon if no cover is avialalbe or unable to get to,, then "stand and deliever", and charge the target/BG, put rounds down range on target and don't stop..

Remember as a civillan you have the right to disengage once the ballon goes up,, LEO's and the millitary normally can't

"Fast is dandy,but accuracy is deadly"

[Roundeyesamurai]

Very nice RES, I will post some thoughts on this tonight.

I undeleted RES's first post on page one. We talked on the phone last night and I realized that I misunderstood what he was saying.

My apologies, Roger

Hey, no prob man, you were doing your job.

[sweatnbullets]

Sorry I'm late to this one. Where do I start?

First of all, good subject brownie. I was not so sure how this would pan out, but it is good to see some self reflection added along with the scrutiny of others. The thread has taken a very good direction.

On the idea of self reflection, there is no doubt that brownie and I have made some pretty extrodinary claims lately (The Quest). These claims could be seen as "Gunfoolery" to the uninitiated. The silence that these claims have generated has been deafening. I am not really sure what to make of it. I would like to think that many of you have witnessed me headed this direction for quite some time. Training with brownie at Sightless inTucson was the last key that was needed to bring this to fruition.

Second, after reading RES excellent post right above this, I realized that I have once again been remiss in giving due credit. RES was the first guy that I spoke with about broaching the "movement" subject with Robin. We discussed what I was seeing and where I wanted to go with what I was seeing. I went to RES because he is an absolute expert on the subject of movement. He explained the problems that I was going to have and the limitations of what I could accomplish. We came up with a workable strategy and solution and finally gave me the thumbs up on broaching the subject.

This brings me to the third thing which is this,

"Combat" instructors who have no "combat" experience!


"A man needs to know his limitations!" Not only that, he must accept his limitations. If you do not have combt experience, you should not act as if you can teach someone about combat. All you can do is let people know that you have this knowledge (skills and techniques), that you know that you could effectively pass on to them, and that you think that they could benefit from. Period....that is all that I (or any other instructor without combat experience) can do. If you notice my past posts, I try to specify that this "might" happen, that you "might" react like this. My niche is to give you tools for these "types" of situations. What my goal is, is to give you a wide variety of tools to deal with as many situations as possible. How one applies these tools in combat is up to the user. I believe that 7677 says it best when he says "that your body will choose the appropriate tool for the situation." My job is to help you add tools to your bag.

[Roundeyesamurai]

Great post, SnB.

WRT Movement- I appreciate the compliment, TYVM!

WRT "Combat"- I have said in the past, and will continue to say, that the "combat grail" is used far too often by instructors who have absolutely no qualification to use it.

On the other hand, there are a good number of instructors who are very good at what they do, without having ever "had combat". The reason? They're teaching a skill they have highly developed, and can be extremely useful to others. It's then up to others to learn the skill and develop on their own.

In other words, they're saying "This is what I have, and I think it can be extremely useful to you". This is the basis of all good training, not just firearms training. This is the fundamental statement of any worthwhile teacher.

What annoys me to no end are instructors with no combat experience, who make statements such as "this is what works (or doesn't work) in combat", "this is all you need to know to win in a gunfight", "let me tell you something about gunfighting", etc. They are, either directly or by proxy, claiming knowledge and/or experience that they don't have, and therefore are not entitled to.

[sweatnbullets]

Thanks for the spelling edit Steve. I have done that before and I even know the difference.:D

I believe that there should be continuity to ones movement. I feel that one should train to get hits through the entire movement spectrum. There is no doubt about the importance of "stand and deliver" skills. I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this skill with tens of thousands of drawstrokes. If my body chooses this solution to the problem, that skill will be there.

I also see a need for very controlled movement that facilitates a precision shot on the move. This could include skills such as "just walk", side stepping (crab walk,) or even the old groucho (duck) walk. All three of these techniques have there place (however small they might be) and should be something that you can do on demand, if that demand arises. I practice head shots at logical distances with this type of movement.

I also see a need to be able to get hits with your toes pointing the direction that you are moving. This type of movement has your upper body working independent from your lower body, "like a turret of a tank." Toes point the direction you are headed, body turreted the direction that you are shooting. This type of movement brings in your bi-lateral skills. Shooting to the firing side can be done two handed to a certain point, then you need to go one handed. The possible speed of this movement can cover the full spectrum, from a walk, to a jog, to a stride, to a run, and finally to a sprint. This is where you find what you are physically capable of. This is where the limitations are pushed, and the standards are set.

Feints, jukes, cut backs and directional changes are also part of the movement skills set. One should explore there ability to use these skills and the limitations that different terrain/footing give you.

React as you need to react, move as you need to move, and see what you need to see to solve the problem that you are confronted with. If you train with these basic concepts, you will have covered the vast majority of the possible situations. In covering these situations, your body will chose, with confidence, the appropriate solution.

[dos gris]

One of the best examples of my own foolishness is showing people how to shoot upside down and backwards using the handgun Quick Kill skills.:rolleyes:

It certainly works, as others who have seen it can attest, but in a very limited manner, if at all. Would someone find themselves in that position to be able to use it? Highly unlikely to say the least.


Oh, I can think of a place where it might be the only option. ;)

[Brownie]

My approach to evasive foot work looks more like a * then a X. I'm not a big fan of moving backwards and I apply a two step rule to using reward steps. Some of the rearward movement may include taking a step to the rear to get behind cover or performing the In-quartata against a charging enemy.

The above was posted by our own 7677 on another thread and forum, about evasion footwork, on 7-10-2005. It's the first time the In-quartata is seen on the net where gun work is concerned to my knowledge, which shows once again that this particular instructor just plagerizes anothers materials and ideas, then attempts to market the idea as their own. He started that thread so it goes without saying he first saw it when 7677 posted it in the above paragraph from that timeline.