Extending the Weapon: When and Why?

[Rob Pincus]

Good Article... the point about extending not the gun before recognition of the threat is a HUGE one.

I see this constantly with the SF guys and other advanced students at Valhalla. It only leads to swinging the gun towards a target, which most people who recognize as a really bad thing to do.

In the civilian sector there is also a wierd habit of extending the gun after every reload that accomplishes nothing and builds bad patterns... not sure where it was popularized, but it must be getting taught at several places.

-RJP

MODERATOR EDIT:
I moved the posts from the OODA thread that were starting to diverge from the original discussion and placed them in their own thread. For those readers interested in how this discussion came about, read here (http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=409).

[David Williams]

I see this constantly with the SF guys and other advanced students at Valhalla. It only leads to swinging the gun towards a target, which most people who recognize as a really bad thing to do.
-RJP

Apples & Oranges. Most of these guys put more rounds downrange in a week than 90% of the training population will in a year... or longer if we're really honest.

The advanced .mil guys train for a different mission, much of which is non-transferable to anything we do out here...to include SWAT/SRT.

The most simple explanation lies in the differences between offensive and defensive actions; the more complex lies in the environment in which these actions take place.

I do agree with the points you made, but I disagree with trying to justify them using techniques espoused by SOF.

[Rob Pincus]

You missed the point, Dave.... I was simply agreeing with the article that even "advanced guys" are failing in this area because of bad training doctrine designed for square ranges. Not sure what you thought I meant, but that was the only reason I invoked the SF guys.... to point out that we are aren't talking about only amateurs making the mistake, to support the same point Ken was making in his article.

Applegate identified this problem over 50 years ago (swingining the gun at extension instead of having it in a position to be extended to the target).

All that said, they don't shoot that much... particularly in training. Some of the teams that come through are having to scrounge ammo outside the supply chain as well as some important training gear just to complete the PMT! :(

[David Williams]

Sorry Rob, I understood what you were trying to say but I think we're coming from two different places. Or, maybe I didn't understand the context in which the SOF guys you reference are raising their weapons prior to PID of the threat such that it is a 'bad thing'...

The point I was trying to make is that since it's Apples & Oranges, maybe what the SF guys you reference are doing isn't a bad thing at all, at least in their world. Obviously, the rules change for LE and civilians, which is why I noted that I don't think it works to compare the two.

Of the SOF guys that I know, I don't consider coming to extension before PID of the threat such a bad thing. In these cases, it is proper placement of the trigger finger that precludes shooting someone rather than not pointing the weapon at them. Those are crucial miliseconds in our world, and it takes far less time to move my finger to the trigger than to move my weapon, acquire a target, and then pull the trigger.

I would venture that if you have your hands on a fully trained SOF team that you're going to have trouble convincing them that the weapon shouldn't be extended until the threat is positively identified. It is for this reason that I try to be very careful drawing parallels between military and LE and civilian training.

But, like I said, I haven't had your experiences. You could very well have seen some things that I can't explain.

[Rob Pincus]

Oh, okay.. I get it now.. No, I definitey do think it is just as bad a thing for them as it is for anyone else.

We must identify (prefereably recognize) a threat before extending (when extending is appropriate for that threat, etc, etc.)

[Bryn Reynolds]

I printed out and read the above linked PDF. It was primer to hopefully push other operators to more fully research the loop.

Am I reading the above posts correctly in that some arguement is being made for NOT orienting the weapon in the direction one is facing? If the weapon is in-play by being out of the holster (or shoulder weapon being brought up) it is because you already sensed there is some bad mojo afoot.

As the article referenced, there is a hige difference between 1 second and
.125 second. This certainly isn't a technique-themed thread, but to address the issue of "swinging" the weapon toward a threat: I use the C.A.R. System and from that system's combat high position no vision is obscured as it would be in Iso and the threat of weapon retention is greatly diminished, almost eliminated.

Am I reading above that the threat of an AD is greater than the benefit of already being oriented toward a possible target should it need to be engaged?

[Guantes]

It seems to me that a lot of ground is being covered with a few broad statements.

Granting that military operations may differ considerably from LE or civilian ones, I would disagree with never extending, depending on environmental factors like distance that would effect tactics. I think it may also be dependent on the specific situation and how one chooses to perceive it. It would not be difficult to envision a situation where I would view anyone encountered is a potential threat until they are either controlled to where the potential threat is at an absolute minimum or nonexistent. In other words rather viewing no one as a threat until they are identified as such, viewing everyone encountered as a threat until they are positively classified as either minimal or a non threat.

[JMusic]

I guess I have the same questions. If your action is offensive in nature I think you are extended. If you are walking into Indian territory I think you go offensive. What am I missing here?

Jim

[David Williams]

I guess I have the same questions. If your action is offensive in nature I think you are extended. If you are walking into Indian territory I think you go offensive. What am I missing here?

Jim

I think Bryn put it very succinctly - it's Risk Management 101. The threat of a ND is taking precedence over gaining that additional 1sec in a high-threat situation. In my opinion, that is paramount to playing to the lowest common denominator.

That said, I think this is another area where context is important. I think it's a necessary mitigation of risk for students who do not perform at a high level; it would be irresponsible to teach a relatively green shooter something as advanced as movement at-the-ready. The argument could most certainly be made that it is an inappropriate thing to teach any civilian.

However, I think that when we start to look at the more advanced students who perform to a much higher standard, then I think it becomes counter-productive to teach them not to fully present their weapon prior to PID of the target because in an offensive environment there is an eternity between 1sec and .125sec - an argument put forth within the article itself.

Now, within the context of the article:
Ken Good's point about coming to full extension prior to location of the threat is considered a bad thing because it blocks the shooter's vision below the plane of their gun. This theoretically reduces additional visual input that is necessary in order to shorten the OODA cycle. Notice that he never mentions a shooter's abilities or the possibility of a negligent discharge.

This leaves us with two distinct concepts to consider. Exactly what problem are we trying to solve?


Are we trying to prevent ND's
Are we trying to shorten the OODA Cycle


If it is the former, then is moving at low-ready (or the combat-high for us CAR guys) enough to satisfy the safety requirement?
If it is the latter, then is it sufficient to simply keep the gun slightly below line of sight in order to satisfy the requirement of not blocking out visual stimuli during the Observing phase?

The two seem to be mutually exclusive ideas until you begin to consider the value of the low-ready technique. If the risk-averse can accept that being slightly off target at 6 o'clock will help prevent putting a bullet in the chest of the wrong target, and the OODA-reducing crowd can accept that the goal is to simply keep one's field-of-vision as wide as possible during the Observing Phase while keeping reaction time to an absolute minimum, then I think the low-ready/combat-high becomes the obvious answer.

One more point about coming to full extension prior to location of the threat for the advanced student:
Those of us who know urban environments and CQB understand that your eyes and head never stop moving, never stop scanning, never stop searching. Given this fact, how much of your total visual input is impeded by having your gun at line-of-sight? Most of us know that you're not walking down the hallway actually looking through the sights, but over them instead. Does constant scanning not compensate somewhat for the lessened FoV?
Personally, I am a low-ready/combat-high kind of guy... I like to move with the weapon only slightly below my line of sight so that I can see more, but still save precious time getting the gun up. However, I think that a student can still be effective with the weapon at full extension and looking over the sights.

[Guantes]

A couple comments on the FOV.

The gun is not the problem with the FOV, it is the hands. Even with the gun at eye level, due to the narrow profile and the propensity (at least for me) to index it under the dominant eye, there is no loss of vision due to the gun. The non-dominant eye looks around the gun, so to speak, seeing everything that the gun might obscure from the dominant eye. The hands are the problem, but their lower level even with the gun at eye level only creates an obstruction from about knee level downward. This obsecurity is only about a foot wide and directly in the center of the vision cone. This means that any threat entering from the side, even at a low level, will be seen in the periphery of the cone.

Is this clearer than mud?

[Brownie]

Is this clearer than mud?

It is to me G :cool: , course I have the gun at nose/mouth level at all times with the threat focused skills I use and teach others so the FOV in peripheral is always there to begin with.:D

[Rob Pincus]

Sorry, guys.. I've been on the road and got away from this thread...

Form my perspective, the ND has nothing to do with my early extension concerns.

Extended before the decision to "extend & shoot" is an issue of consistency, the advantage of a bio-mechanical stop (extension, vs. swinging) when you do find a threat and retention issues.


LAstly, there is no difference between the offensive and defensive nature of the situation in regard to extension. In fact, if one is moving forward to find a threat or exit in a CQ environment, it would be more imperative to keep the gun in during movement up to an around corners and for field of vision while "hunting".... it would be more likely to make sense to extend early in a defensive situation when you have one identified threat at reasonable pistol distance beyond 2 arms reach... but I still don's recommend it.

-RJP

[JMusic]

I think it is important to define "full extention" in this type of scenereo. For me full extension would be gun up no lower than 6 inches below line of sight. It would be a position that I "could" shoot from. Offensive and defensive to me is Mind set. You can very well be backing out of an area but still be in an offensive mode. Now I haven't had the benifit of "New" training. Maybe terms and tactics have changed but I find that difficult to believe it has evolved much.

Rob can you explain why you feel you are better off staying at low ready instead of extending?

Jim

[Brownie]

Rob,

In fact, if one is moving forward to find a threat or exit in a CQ environment, it would be more imperative to keep the gun in during movement up to an around corners

The distance one finds themselves to the corner, exit or doorway is directly proportional to the amount of retraction/retention [ pulling the gun in toward the body ] one uses while hunting.

LAstly, there is no difference between the offensive and defensive nature of the situation in regard to extension

I believe there is a difference between the two.

If I'm hunting, I'm proactive and already have the gun in hand, and am aware of the potential threats that I may encounter. I'm expecting to have to use the gun at a moments notice.

If I'm defensive, I'm reactive and my gun is not in my hand to begin with, it has to be drawn from the holster. The decision to draw means I've determined a threat is viable, and the amount of extension is directly proportional to the time and distance I have within that particular scenario thats presented itself.

Edited to add after reading Jims post:

I would consider extension "For me full extension would be gun up no lower than 6 inches below line of sight." as Jim states here as well. Extension could also be described as the elbows locked or nearly locked and the weapon within the narrow peripheral view, the gun at about the same height as Jim described above.

It's a simple matter of bending the elbows when approaching corners which pulls the gun into a compressed ready position around nipple level, and as soon as the corner has been cleared moving the weapon back out to extended to continue hunting "at the ready".

One thing that has not been addressed in this discussion of running extended or compressed/retentive is stairwells. As it is probably the worst of the fatal funnels to address relative the danger of taking incoming while hunting, I want that gun right where Jim puts his [ no less than 6" below line of sight ] and capable of making effective hits immediately unless there is a reason to compress at that moment in time.

[Rob Pincus]

Again: Why extend if you don't have a threat in front of you that you are going to shoot at?

[Brownie]

Again: Why extend if you don't have a threat in front of you that you are going to shoot at?

Economy of motion if a threat appears, saving time.

You mentioned this previously:

Applegate identified this problem over 50 years ago (swingining the gun at extension instead of having it in a position to be extended to the target).

Applegates comments were made from the perspective that Fairbairn/Sykes taught others to swing the gun up from the leg to the 3/4 hip position [ going from low line to high line ]. That swinging [ actually raising is the term ] at extension from low line to high line is not the same as being extended and the gun tracking with the head and eyes whle hunting near the same plane [ high line only and only letting the muzzle track [ move, not swing ] with the upper body/eyes ].

and then this:
I see this constantly with the SF guys and other advanced students at Valhalla. It only leads to swinging the gun towards a target, which most people who recognize as a really bad thing to do.

In the civilian sector there is also a wierd habit of extending the gun after every reload that accomplishes nothing and builds bad patterns... not sure where it was popularized, but it must be getting taught at several places.

The bolded text is classic Modern Technique training incorporating the 4 count draw stroke they use to get the gun in play. I don't agree with it completely, but I see it in students in our clasees who have been far too indoctrinated into the modern technique skills taught at Front Sight in NV, etc.

The original poster who started this thread was using that skill even after he had been trained in threat focused skills by 7677, Matt and myself in Tucson in Oct 05. Though I've lost track of his training regimen in the last year, I doubt he's changed that skill set in the least.

[JMusic]

Just so we are clear let me describe what I invision here. My assumptions are this:
1. We are talking building clearing
2. This is a proffesional operation (LE or Mil.)
3. We are looking for an armed BG.
4. Intel indicates BG is in the building.
5. There may be other individuals in the building.

This is what I have based my commnets on. It is a common scenereo acted out everyday with our proffesional good guys be it Military or LEO.

My technique would be to enter the building with at least a partner and could be up to 6-12 personel. Point guys usually would have long guns. ( I had a Tommy gun:eek: ) Firearm positions were carried at low ready to full extension throughout the search. Full extention was used at every preceived area of oppertunity.

Rob what was I doing wrong here? Please expand on your statement why use full extention if you do not see the threat. I think you handicapp yourself if you don't.

Jim

[Brownie]

Guess what I've just seen Rob?:D

I went out to your site off the link and in a video you have there I saw two things that stuck out right away that relate to this discussion.

First, a few of the women shooting on the bays are swinging their pistols up out of their holsters on the shooting line [ the nearest one for sure ] instead of extending from a compressed drawstroke. You've mentioned that swinging the gun is bad, yet a few of the students seem to be doing just that in that clip to some degree.

Second,

Later in the video, in every scenario where a search is being conducted, every "operator" is at extension, the gun tracking their upper body and eyes, including yourself just as I've described and others have stated here should be used.

The guy looking up into the crawl space is fully extended while he's hunting.

I guess the next question I'd have is how can the video validate that which we've stated about extended without an ID'd threat to shoot, and you ask the question of "Why extend if you don't have a threat in front of you that you are going to shoot at?"

Clearly, the message you deliver here is not the same message seen througout that promotional video on your site by several people involved in the scenarios there.

Couple more questions for you:

Do you wear that drop leg holster on the streets of Colorado? Do your civilian students where drop legs? Your training facility seems more geared toward LE and Mils training than CCW carriers from the promotional vid presented on the home page. Most of the clips were room clearings, building searches. Not something many CCW carriers are going to be involved in even once in their lifetime. If you focus on Mils and LE's [ and from the home page video, you do ], we should perhaps keep that which you write in that context from now on unless you specify differently in one of your posts.

[David Williams]

Again: Why extend if you don't have a threat in front of you that you are going to shoot at?
Because action is always faster than reaction.

Meaning that regardless of the offensive or defensive nature of the situation, we are always somewhat behind the curve, so we will almost always find ourselves reacting. Anything I can do to mitigate that is a good thing in my book.

For the sake of the discussion I think it might help somewhat if Rob explains exactly what he considers "full extension". It's entirely possible that we're all saying similar things using different terms; and I'd hate to see a good thread get bogged down over terminology.

[Bryn Reynolds]

I'd hate to see a good thread get bogged down over terminology.

I think that is what may be happening...(I HOPE that is what is hapening, as I certainly don't think that someone could actually be teaching not to orient your weapon toward where you are clearing UNTIL a positive threat has presented itself to you...by then it could be game over for you.)

Here is what I mean by "extended." I shoot C.A.R. so for me this is as extended as it is going to get for anything 15yds. and in. It is what is called the Extended Position in the system I shoot. Dave will confirm that I, and he, can engage targets very effectively and quickly from this position and still retain the weapon.
This was taken of me teaching in a C.A.R. class and I am engaging a threat that is on the ground and can be seen at the bottom of this post.

If one is talking about Iso-Weaver type of extended (arms fully extended) while "hunting" then I certainly agree with Brownie, gauntes, etc. that having the weapon up only a few inches below eye level is a better choice for you if you shoot those "stances." You are ready to engage targets from that position yet are not fully extending the weapon to arms length where you could lose it. I demo frequently in FOF training that if you get close to me with that weapon held out at full arms length then I am going to take it.

For those that don't frequent the C.A.R. forum here, this is a YouTube link of me shooting from this "extended" position for anyone that might want to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl58KCmyD38

There are three targets each 7-9 yds. apart. One direct front, one direct right, and one direct left. Each gets 2 body and 2 head. I am engaging the targets slower than I normaly do because of the distances and I wanted to make sure I had no misses. I posted it to highlight a hands-switching technique for the third target but it also shows quite well how I define the extended position.

I guess bottom line for me is if the gun is out it is in play for a damned good reason. However you define "extended," I want that .-whatever second advantage being oriented in the direction I am looking affords me.

Bryn

[JMusic]

I don't know anything about CAR but the video certainly was interesting. At first I thought you were firing a shoulder held weapon then you changed hands. Looks like a good solid platform to shoot from. Maybe DW can show me some tricks if I ever get him out here.

We (us old guys) used to tuck our weapons in when searching so full extension in building entries were a bit different than what many would envision. My elbows were usually tucked in tight against my body and we shot from a bladed two hand position. Canting the weapon though was not done plus I think you have better speed switching directions.

Jim

[David Williams]

Extended before the decision to "extend & shoot" is an issue of consistency, the advantage of a bio-mechanical stop (extension, vs. swinging) when you do find a threat and retention issues.


LAstly, there is no difference between the offensive and defensive nature of the situation in regard to extension. In fact, if one is moving forward to find a threat or exit in a CQ environment, it would be more imperative to keep the gun in during movement up to an around corners and for field of vision while "hunting".... it would be more likely to make sense to extend early in a defensive situation when you have one identified threat at reasonable pistol distance beyond 2 arms reach... but I still don's recommend it.

-RJP
This is one of the many areas where C.A.R. outperforms the status quo. Because the extended position in C.A.R. is already very compressed we are able to take advantage of not only having the weapon already in a stable position from which to engage but also of reducing the "sweeping" problems that people face when walking around at full Iso/Weaver extension by shortening the length of the "turret" (distance between pivot point and the front sight).

[Bryn Reynolds]

At first I thought you were firing a shoulder held weapon then you changed hands. Looks like a good solid platform to shoot from.
Jim

I think I'll take that a compliment.....;)

(Dave summed up nicely in just a couple sentences my CAR-specific extended position description that took me several paragraphs, a pic, and a video to do!)

Yes, if you can get Dave to teach you some basics I know you will not be dissapointed.

Bryn

[Rob Pincus]

It might be terminology at some level, but I think it is important to state (repeat?) the following:

1. Extending the gun is not necessarily an "action vs. reaction" issue.. if you aren't actually extending at the threat you will eventually need to shoot, you gain little and probably lose retention and efficiency (because you will end up having to swing the gun at the threat when you find it, which is less efficient than extending towards after/while orienting towards it or directly at it off-angle from the body when necessary.) The assumption that moving around or waiting with the gun extended is an advantage is flawed.

2. Shooting from anything other than an extended position should only be done when necessary, as it compromises weapon reliability, consistency of shot placement and the ability to manage recoil efficiently ( all dictated by physics and bio-mechanics, regardless of style preferences :rolleyes: ).

-RJP

[JMusic]

Interesting concept Rob. How did you come to those conclusions?

Jim

[David Williams]

1. Extending the gun is not necessarily an "action vs. reaction" issue...[snip]...The assumption that moving around or waiting with the gun extended is an advantage is flawed.
I disagree. My opinion is that it is absolutely an "action vs. reaction" issue.
How does this view account for the fact that many shooters - when moving with the weapon down - will shoot low and/or into the ground the moment they're surprised? You might not see it a lot in a controlled environment
where the shooter knows they are not going to get shot, but I've seen it enough to know that it does happen.


2. Shooting from anything other than an extended position should only be done when necessary, as it compromises weapon reliability, consistency of shot placement and the ability to manage recoil efficiently


Within the context of this thread nobody has - as yet - advocated shooting from anything other than an extended position. It is agreed that the shooter should come to full extension if possible, the discussion has centered around when coming to full extension is appropriate and for what reasons.


( all dictated by physics and bio-mechanics, regardless of style preferences :rolleyes: ).
I'm not sure that anyone has made statements that contradict the rules of either physics or bio-mechanics. The problem that you put forth was that we lose both retention and efficiency by swinging the weapon towards a target from full extension. CAR makes an attempt to address both issues, and does a fairly good job of it, without also dictating that we move about with the weapon in what I feel is a disadvantageous position.

As an aside -
Your response indicates that you are either unfamiliar or un-accepting of the concepts taught in C.A.R.; and while I am always willing to discuss the merits of a system or technique - I am not always so willing to tolerate the implied arrogance that often lies behind that particular (:rolleyes:) expression of sarcasm. At best it is disrespectful, and at worst it shows contempt.

[Guantes]

"(because you will end up having to swing the gun at the threat when you find it....."

If the gun follows the eyes, when the eyes see (find) a threat, the gun is already pointed at it, no swinging involved.

[David Williams]

Ok, so after a bit of research and a phone conversation with a buddy of mine who lurks more than posts, I've developed a few conclusions (read: opinions) about the message Rob is trying to get across here.

Valhalla instructors espouse a position called the Compressed High Ready. Initially that sounds a bit complex, but all Rob has really done is take the standard low-ready position and pull it back tight to the body.
This picture, taken from one of Rob's own articles, illustrates the Compressed High Ready -

http://content.ll-0.com/valhalla/valhalla_e_a000390113.JPG

As opposed to the standard "full-extension" positions:

http://www.io.com/~cortese/pix/firearms/isosceles.jpg http://www.io.com/~cortese/pix/firearms/weaver.jpg
Pictures borrowed from this page. (http://www.io.com/~cortese/firearms/index.html)

There are some obvious benefits to such a compressed ready position, chief among them are better weapons retention and negating an inexperienced student's tendency to "lead with the gun" during movement.

Yes, I said inexperienced; at least within the context of close-quarters skills.

However, I mentioned above that I had developed a couple of opinions regarding this discussion - and one of them is that a distinction needs to be made about the types of students we are targeting with this discussion, and another needs to be about the context in which the techniques discussed should be applied.

I am going to step right up and say that for the majority of civilian students, I think Rob's Compressed High Ready is a great technique. I also think the technique is good to go for most patrol officers. However, I do not think the Compressed High Ready is appropriate for most military (or LE tactical team) applications, and here's why: different objectives, disparate levels of training.

Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment. Regardless of our individual CQB skillsets, do we really expect the average SD student to perform at the level of those whose professional responsibility is to maintain the highest standard of CQB skills? Do we even really expect the average SD student to approach room-clearing with the same mentality and aggressiveness as someone who trains professionally in CQB? It is my opinion that we neither do nor should. I have my own personal views on the over-use of the term "CQB" and it's relative inappropriateness in the SD context...but, unfortunately, I am not aware of a better term to use. Suffice it to say that CQB for .mil/LE is far different than what is being taught to civilians under the umbrella of Close Quarter Battle.

With that said, the objective of a .mil/LE tactical team in CQB is to dominate and eliminate - the operative word being "battle". In contrast, the objective of most patrol officers, and to a lesser degree John Q. Public, is to control. This is one of the biggest reasons I do not like to call what we teach civilians "CQB".

When a .mil or LE tactical team hits a building, the only thought on their collective minds are to completely dominate the entire situation - quickly, effectively, efficiently, and violently. There are differences even between .mil and LE tactical teams' methodologies, but they are not important for this discussion.

When a patrol officer finds himself with a weapon drawn and in a building, his/her all-consuming thought is to establish control over the situation. He is hopefully more deliberate, more methodical, and ultimately more defensive in nature than in the previous example. Perhaps due to a lack of backup, equipment, training, or even a difference in mindset - but the most important thing to remember is that establishing control is an entirely different ballgame than domination.

Same with most armed civilians; when they hear a noise at night most people aren't going to clear their house with the intent to dominate and eliminate...rather, they will methodically work their way through the house in an effort to establish / re-establish control.

Which brings us back to how our different objectives - and by implication, training - will affect the techniques we use in order to get the job done. In the world of CQB, movement is so fast, fluid, and dynamic that a shooter moving about with his weapon at either low-ready or full extension is not a bad thing. However, having someone whose focus is on controlling the environment move slowly about with their weapon at full extension highlights a few obvious problems...problems that I think Rob's Compressed High Ready makes a decent attempt to address.

Most inexperienced shooters will lead with their weapon, presenting their weapon into uncleared/unsecured areas long before their body or vision clears an angle covering up dead space. The most common example is a shooter moving slowly and methodically into a room (or clearing a corner) at full extension, leaving his weapon exposed to a gun-grab. Imagine the BG hiding just inside a doorway, and the first thing he sees is a gun pushed into the room, but the owner still outside. And if you've never tried to hold on to your gun when someone grabs it while you're at full extension - well...you don't have much hope in the way of weapon-retention.

Why is it advantageous in true CQB to move at full extension, but not in our other examples? Simple. Speed and aggressiveness. The speed at which a team dominates a room makes grabbing someone's gun as they cross the threshold near impossible. Conversely, the slow, methodical way that most people will clear their own houses increases the risk of a gun grab attempt.

With that in mind, what are possible solutions? We can either focus on teaching our civilian students to dominate and eliminate, or we can provide our civilian students (and patrol officers) with a technique that minimizes the risks inherent in moving about at full extension at slow speeds. This is why I like the Compressed High Ready and similar techniques...they do just that.

However, like I said before: I think the techniques application has limited value when the conversation shifts from control to domination...and consequently I think Rob is a bit out of line when he describes the .mil/LE tendency to conduct CQB from full-extension/low-ready a "bad habit".

Just my $.03

[Brownie]

Valhalla instructors espouse a position called the Compressed High Ready.

Valhalla has video clips of searches by himself and a team member in one, and they are NOT using Compressed High Ready while hunting in those clips DW. One clip has two in a hall, both have the weapons extended and slightly down from horizontal [ not actually low ready ] while hunting as well.

The photo you put up looks like the muzzle is pointed slightly downward and outward in the direction of travel which bends the wrists which I do not like at all for it weakens the grip on the gun.

This compressed ready picture you put up is a position we'd move into while taking corners, as a matter of retention to prevent the firearm from a potential attempt at a grab while the threat of a grab might be present. We moved in and out of that position frequently during training. I see no benefit or detriment to staying in compressed ready all the time while searching.

No quesiton it's a good position to be in at times for short durations, but unless you are going to shoot from that position throughout the extending of the weapon, you aren't going to be faster to threat IMO. If you are going to train civilians to search [ probably only in "slow and deliberate" as you mention ], I question why you'd train them to stay in the compressed ready when it was not necessary. Training solves the problem of the inherent problems you've mentioned in your post.

Compressed ready is a skill ITFTS trains others to shoot from all the way through and from the initial drawstroke. Usually it puts 3-5 rds on threat before the arms are at full extension so I'm very familiar with the compresed ready position myself. Compressed ready positioning is well known within the training community, I would expect Mr. Pincus to use that term if that was indeed what he was attempting to get across in his posts about not extending.

Brownie

[David Williams]

The photo you put up looks like the muzzle is pointed slightly downward and outward in the direction of travel which bends the wrists which I do not like at all for it weakens the grip on the gun.
I agree. I should have addressed that in my post, but got too focused on the other piece.



This compressed ready picture you put up is a position we'd move into while taking corners, as a matter of retention to prevent the firearm from a potential attempt at a grab while the threat of a grab might be present. We moved in and out of that position frequently during training. I see no benefit or detriment to staying in compressed ready all the time while searching.
Excellent point, and one that I completely agree with. I do think that there is a time and a place for a compressed ready (even one with a fancy name), but I cannot come up with a good reason why someone should stay in that position indefinitely. Fluid is the name of the game...we have to be comfortable moving from technique to technique, and we have to know why we're doing it.


No quesiton it's a good position to be in at times for short durations, but unless you are going to shoot from that position throughout the extending of the weapon, you aren't going to be faster to threat IMO. If you are going to train civilians to search [ probably only in "slow and deliberate" as you mention ], I question why you'd train them to stay in the compressed ready when it was not necessary. Training solves the problem of the inherent problems you've mentioned in your post.
I think the key phrase there is "when not necessary". Even if students are going to be taught to shoot through the extension, they need to be able to make an educated determination about when they use compressed ready and when it's appropriate to extend out. Rather than convincing students that they must depend on a single technique (i.e. Compressed High Ready, all day, every day), they must be taught how to think for themselves so that they can shift between techniques when necessary.
Training does overcome the problems I outlined in my post...however as time goes on I am continually reminded that most people have neither the time nor inclination to put that much work into it. Instead we concentrate on how to solve that 80/20 question. Hence the distinct disconnect between what a highly trained student will do and what most of the training public will do, and why I feel that Rob's assertion that certain things are always a mistake, even when high-end students do them, is fundamentally flawed.

Compressed ready positioning is well known within the training community, I would expect Mr. Pincus to use that term if that was indeed what he was attempting to get across in his posts about not extending.
Well, that's one of the things we were trying to get him to clarify, much to our frustration. You are right, the concept of compressed ready is neither new nor exclusive to Mr. Pincus - but rather than explain it in clear terms, he chose to continue down the path of "full extension is bad...period".
I like to think that most people choose the words they use carefully, especially those in a position to influence others. That Mr. Pincus ignored repeated requests to clarify exactly what he considered "full-extension" and whether or not a low-ready position would be an acceptable substitute in his examples - choosing instead to remain focused on bad habits and poorly executed (understood) techniques being used by less experienced shooters (yes, they exist even in the SOF community) to justify an opinion that such techniques must be bad no matter who uses them - certainly makes me question the experiences from which his conclusions have been drawn.

That one of us felt compelled to do the research and attempt to make some sense of Mr. Pincus's assertions on our own rather than him simply clarifying some of his basic assumptions only makes it that much more frustrating.

[Brownie]

That one of us felt compelled to do the research and attempt to make some sense of Mr. Pincus's assertions on our own rather than him simply clarifying some of his basic assumptions

I was surprised you went the extra mile, but it demonstrates your commitment to this forum as a MOD to address a members comments relative understanding what it is the member was attempting to convey.

Good job DW

[David Williams]

I was surprised you went the extra mile, but it demonstrates your commitment to this forum as a MOD to address a members comments relative understanding what it is the member was attempting to convey.

Thanks for that, but the reason I took the time out of my day is so other members and guests who attempts to follow this thread are able to get something of value. It's a good discussion, and I'd hate to see it disintegrate into the same quality of close-minded "my kung-fu is stronger than yours" drivel that I see in other forums.

Besides, I would never presume to speak for Mr. Pincus - I believe he is quite capable of doing that on his own...