“Expert” is a subjective term. Having been through ALL sorts of training from martial arts, military, LE, SWAT, Federal LE schools I can attest that there are experts and there are EXPERTS.
Seeing that more of my training now centers around the “tactical” and firearms. In this world you have experts like Todd Jarret:
Todd has no military or LE background and I doubt he has ever had to shoot anyone. That being said, LE and Mil actively seek his instruction/expertise in what he does.
On the other end of the spectrum are guys like Kyle Lamb:
Former Army Delta. “Blackhawk Down” veteran…Iraq war Vet..etc. Has shot people, has been shot at…numerous times.
While Jarret is probably faster and more “expert” than Lamb when it comes to driving a gun, Lambs instruction is coming from an ENTIRELY different source. Shooting is shooting. Jarret and Lamb are both drawing, aiming and shooting firearms…what makes one “different” from the other?
This isnt to imply that I think one is “better” than the other. LE/MIL seek them both but what they provide isnt identitical.
So what is an “expert”? I myself have been through all sorts of training, Ive won some awards and tactical/firearms competitions. Im former mil, SWAT officer, a veteran police officer..so I am an “expert” of sorts compared to others. But Im nowhere near the “expert” these guys are and likely never will be…
Fact of the matter is. If you are serious about school safety 99% of them need to be torn down, re-designed and re-built. The days of “walk into your local school house/open and welcoming design” are gone….IMO a start would be:
-A buzzer opened door that leads directly into the school is BAD. People WILL need to come and go from a school for many legitimate reasons. What schools should have is what many PD’s have. A front desk area where you can do routine tasks through bullet-proof glass. If you need to come in to see admin you get buzzed into the admin area which is separate from the school area. If you need to get into the school proper you are let in from there.
-Exterior door and ground floor window glass cant be breached by some kid with a rifle.
-Interior classroom doors are always closed and locked during class…and the doors are “unkickable” and designed so that a person with a gun cant break out glass and reach in.
-Someone in the school, be it a full time SRO, a trained guard, or trained staff needs access to a weapon as an emergency tool.
A quote that I use as a signature on an internet martial arts forum goes as follows:
“Mental bearing (calmness), not skill, is the sign of a matured samurai. A Samurai therefore should neither be pompous nor arrogant.”
- Tsukahara Bokuden
I think that the author makes an interesting point. I interpret this passage as saying that all Samurai have the same “basic training”. One can expect that a Samurai has skill with the sword, the bow, a spear, horseback riding and so on. The mature Samurai though, he possesses the presence of mind and calm demeanor that allow him to apply those skills freely and at the opportune time.
I’ve often thought about how this applies to modern combatives. An average practitioner is expected to have some training in basic combative skill. The thing that will set that student apart from others will be that “switch” between the physical techniques and “mental incorporation” for lack of a better term. A black belt with an encyclopedic knowledge of technique that “tweaks out” under stress is worthless. An untrained person who can stay calm under stress, grab a ball point pen and stab an attacker “about the head and neck” with it is a successful survivor. Mental bearing, willingness to commit and a pre-thought “action plan” are key. I honestly believe that successful martial arts training has more to do with getting a person to ACT when the time comes to act, the technique or system is secondary to this. I think that the advantage being seen in MMA is due to their training program vs any “technical superiority”. They train to take and deliver blows. They train against resisting opponents. I think that almost any martial art can reap these benefits through a re-evaluation of their training protocols. However, not everybody studies martial arts for this purpose. Studios that depend on the children’s programs, the fitness pitches or the “hobbyist” martial arts students will not attract or retain as many people as they would like if they make the training too demanding. It comes down to the instructor and his goals.
On another point, people who take this business seriously need to “pre-plan” for as many situations as they can dream up. Even if the solution is as simple as “I will never allow myself to be forced into a car and transported elsewhere. I’d rather fight and die quickly on the spot than be taken somewhere to die”. The survivor needs to have a basic “mental flowchart” already downloaded into the brain. This will foster this “mental bearing”.
I think that the pursuit of this state of mind is what attracts many martial artists to Zen and meditation; but while that can be a substantial aid I don’t see it as a “magic potion” unless it is made into a part of ones everyday life. Often it seems that westerners look at things like Zen as a “martial arts supplement”…take your daily dosage and watch the amazing results. I think that benefits like these are cumulative and the changes so slow and subtle that a person will rarely notice a change in themselves. Taking that route requires a life long commitment and a permanent shift in ones concept of reality.
The best way to learn to control your mind under stress is to “inoculate” yourself against it. Face the small battles everyday. Push yourself physically and mentally. Train to work through fatigue, fear and stress. Another thing I have often read about mindset is paraphrased as “you are how you choose to think”. In other words “act calm” under stress, even if you don’t think you are calm. For all intents and purposes, you will be controlling your mental state and if done long enough you will find that you really do start remaining calm under stress. Life rarely has “magical transformations”, most change comes from consistency. The formation of good habit is key.
One of the first posts on this blog and still one that gets some of the most frequent “hits”. It’s interesting how in the comments some readers translate this advice into “living a life of no fun or adventure”. If you think that boozing and visiting high crime areas is what makes a life worth living you need to expand your horizons IMO. I still stand by this advice.
As a LEO I believe I can give you the “magic formula” to avoid 99% of “street attacks”:
Don’t participate in illegal activity. Don’t hang out with people who attract trouble (need I clarify that?). Don’t hang out in places that attract trouble. Don’t get drunk or high. Don’t tolerate domestic violence, call the police and/or leave the abuser. Be alert to your surroundings and if something “feels” wrong…leave. Many people stick around thinking that they are being needlessly paranoid.
For that remaining 1% of instances where you are attacked while just “minding your own business”…study an art that exposes you to striking/grappling/fighting with a resisting opponent and exposes you to getting hit and working through exhaustion and stress. Be aware of your states self defenselaws, and have a plan for “post-incident” already thought out.
And throughout it all, everyday, practice your skill sets.
In light of my recent post “what exactly do you think you are doing”, I thought that moving up this post from last year would add yet another professionals opinion on the issue of training priorities.
Former SEAL and “Tactical Impact” star Kyle Defoor has a blog going. Go check it out.
The first thing you need to do clearly identify your needs of training FOR THE REAL WORLD, such as; carbine, pistol, blade, combatives, physical fitness, tactics. Once you’ve made a list of the what, honestly ask yourself what you really NEED the most and which one you just LIKE to do. Here lies the problem. We (humans) like to practice what we’re good at, and what makes us feel good. Over time this is a recipe for disaster.
Kyle has a lot of good stuff; rifle painting, controlling fear, repairing EoTechs…take a look.
A theme that keeps popping up in discussion with my like minded friends revolves around the issue of firearms training and it’s sometimes over-emphasized place in (some) peoples lives.
While “overtraining” in weapon skills is obviously NOT a problem in comparison to all of the people who are undertrained, and constant practice IS important; it’s also important to realize that there are MANY other skills that are as or even more important than being able to doubletap a target while on the move.
However, pistol and carbine training courses – and shotgun courses, and precision rifle courses etc. – are all essentially based on, or grew from the concept of, providing law enforcement and military personnel with a greater ability to use their issued weapons. What we see now in the firearms community are essentially the same courses marketed to civilian shooters, perhaps with some limitations or restrictions. This is all well and good, but there is a major disconnect between the skills of a civilian shooter who has attended many carbine and pistol training courses and the skills of a Marine infantryman who has never attended training outside that which is provided by the military.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that the civilian shooter would be more proficient with the rifle/carbine and the pistol, at least within 50 to 100 yards. However, the Marine possesses skills that would make him much more valuable to an infantry unit, and, I daresay, more valuable in a firefight. Unfortunately, the skills that make him so valuable are not cool enough to draw dozens of paying clients.
Some – certainly not all – civilian training centers draw students by telling them how after only a few days of training, they will become as good a shooter as “a SWAT cop or a Navy SEAL.” Yes, Front Sight, I’m looking at you. Even when this is not stated outright, it is implied – most often not by the instructors, but by the students. For some people who have never been in the military, and are seeking a little excitement, putting on all the gear and getting on line to practice shooting drills is a really fun way to spend a weekend. I certainly don’t wish to put down what they have chosen to do too much, for as I said above, anyone who wants to own an AR-15 should know how to use it. However, while there is a massive jump in skills and proficiency after the first few training courses, the 5th, 10th, or 15th course is of relatively little value.
Amen.
He’s saying exactly what I always say in reply to the “many cops are crappy shooters” cannard that pops up in many shooting related discussions. Yes, some (perhaps even too many) are, but do you know what skill they should spend even more time working on? Driving. And after that? Unarmed defensive tactics.
Sure you may be a better shot than a Marine , but can you land nav to an ambush site and lay an ambush? Can you call in artillery? Do you know combat first aid and tactical radio communications? Nobody is saying that shooting isn’t of vital importance, but once you have that skill checked off and you have a maintainance plan to preserve what you have learned, don’t stay in a rut.
For the “civilian” who wants to be prepared? Is there really any more skill improvement that they need past the 3rd or 4th training course? Not that there is anything wrong with participating in classes simply because it’s fun and its “your money”, but in terms of useful skills how about getting some first aid training instead of dropping 2-5K on another trip to Front Sight? Or maybe take up running or some sort of fitness training. THAT will pay off far more in the long run of your life than another weekend burning through a case of .223.
PS- The same goes for YOU, my martial arts class taking “warriors” out there. One or Two classes a week at the local dojo does not a “warrior” make. How many $200-$300 seminars do you REALLY need to take?
If you are doing it as a hobby or simply because you enjoy it (so go @!$% yourself Tgace) that 100% A-OK with me. But make your decisions in full awareness.
I have seen, practiced and even operationally utilized some two man movement techniques similar to these but they sometimes left me thinking about the wisdom of them.
I can see the utility in “nuts to butts drills” when used doing building clearing and other situations where you need to maneuver in tight quarters and keep a 360 deg security. Similarly I can see their advantages as immediate reaction drills where you make contact while in a stack or while approaching a scene/suspect with a partner close by.
Auto-pistols can be carried in various conditions of readiness. First defined by the legendary Lt Col John Dean “Jeff” Cooper these conditions are commonly accepted to be:
Condition 0 – A round is in the chamber, hammer cocked, and the safety is off.
Condition 1 – known as “cocked and locked”, means a round is in the chamber, the hammer cocked, and the manual thumb safety on the side of the frame is applied.
Condition 2 – A round is in the chamber and the hammer is down.
Condition 3 – The chamber is empty and hammer down with a charged magazine in the gun.
Condition 4 – The chamber is empty, hammer down and no magazine is in the gun.
These conditions are/were designed with a 1911 style pistol in mind. The Glock with no external safety (but with its “safe action” safety measures) technically cant have the thumb safety applied so it’s condition when loaded and chambered is a matter of debate amongst handgun afficinados but it’s commonly accepted that a Glock is in “Condition 1″ when loaded with a round in the chamber.
With these definitions in mind, a common debate amongst pistoleros is the argument over which is safer for defensive carry, condition 1 or condition 3?
The “Israeli Method”
C3 carry is commonly referred to as the Israeli Method. Some people believe that it is safer and no less effective to carry the pistol with a magazine inserted, safety off, and no round in the chamber. When needed, the shooter draws, racks the slide on the draw stroke and fires.
Carrying in Condition 3 is not restricted to the Israelis, nor did they really invent it. I remember having to carry in Condition 3 quite often as a USArmy Military Police Officer (both when I was issued a 1911 and the M9). It’s gotten that label because the Israelis popularized it as a method of carry and developed an entire method of presentation around empty-chamber carry. The philosophy is that C3 provides a method of carry that allows safe carry for a largely untrained population with a diverse variety of firearms.
Drawbacks
Detractors of C3 carry state that carrying with an empty chamber is a symptom of insufficient training and confidence. Adding an extra step to make the weapon functionable is slower and needlessly adding complexity to a high stress situation. Secondly it requires two hands, or a riskier one-handed “rack” that again adds needless complexity that C1 carry does not.
Speed
An argument against C3 carry based on pure speed is relative. The above video is pretty damn fast and I’d say plenty fast enough for combat application.
I tried comparing my own speed with the two:
Not really being practiced at the “Israeli Method”, even my draw is not excessively slower, but I did short stroke the slide a few times or fumble it in some other manner. I’m just not practiced…but should I be? I can’t see the wisdom of investing practice time into C3 deployment when I’m trained to carry C1.
In regards to the two hand necessity though I have to side with the doubters.
One hand deployment
Look at what this Police Officer faced (cant embed video click link) ?
Officer Cress shot and killed alleged DUI suspect Errol Baker on Sunday. For over one minute, Cress battled with Baker after pulling a gun on the officer. The trooper punched Baker several times, once causing him to drop the 45-caliber handgun. Baker retrieved the gun and fired, narrowly missing Cress. The trooper then grabbed his own gun, firing a fatal shot into Baker’s head.
Right around 1:40 after wrestling with the BG for what probably seemed like eternity, the suspect pulls a gun and fires over his shoulder at the cop. The officer draws one handed and shoots the BG in the head. Sure if he was carrying C3 he could have raked the slide against his belt or something, but that’s a murphy laden disaster waiting to happen.
There are simply too many instances I can think of where having to rack a slide in a CQB scenario will simply be too slow or physically impossible. Watch what Gabe Suarez has his students doing in this video:
Start around the 3:00 mark. Do you really want to face a situation like those in C3?
I see the “what will you do if he’s attacking you with a bat” question as being very legitimate. Since most gun fights start out at bad breath range you may very well be faced with those types of examples far more often than you would like. Adding having to chamber a round to make your weapon usable is just adding more problems to the situation vs solving any.
Some say “If he’s attacking you with a bat or knife you should deal with that using empty hand skills then gain distance and deploy your gun”. Sure, you MAY be forced to resolve the H2H issue without your firearm, but when carrying condition 3 you have just put yourself into a situation where thats going to be the fact. Like it or not. You have effectively taken the gun out of the equation for all intents and purposes.
And comparing one handed stoppage clearing in a SHTF situation to forcing yourself into a situation where you will have no choice but to chamber one handed is apples and oranges. You train one handed manipulations as a “God forbid I ever have to do this in real life” type of thing, not as normal operating procedure.
In the end, I just don’t see the risk of misfires in a modern auto-pistol being significant enough to warrant carrying unchambered. It’s more a matter of the carrier not feeling comfortable or well enough trained than it is anything else IMO. I also think that there is a dose of “It’s Israeli so it must be high-speed” going on.
Too many people use the terms ‘strategy’ and ‘tactics’ incorrectly or even talk about a particular ‘thing’ or topic as being both a good strategy and tactic. Usually, this is actually referring to a tactic but the person likes to throw in the word strategy because it sounds cool, they don’t know better or believe it somehow implies a deeper thought process and means more…
He’s right and his post goes on to give a solid explanation of what the two of them are and what they should mean to you. Go read it.
2013 CrossFit Games Regional Event 4 For time: 100 Wall ball shots, 20 pound ball 100 Chest to bar pull-ups 100 One-legged squats, alternating 70 pound Dumbbell snatch, alternating, 100 reps Post time to comments. Enlarge image Jason Khalipa sets World Record "Jackie" time of 5:04, NorCal Regional. "CrossFit Kids as a Physical-Education Curric […]
The contents of this website are for informational purposes only. Contents herein are the opinion of the author and are not to be mistaken as legal or professional advice. The views expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of any particular department or political entity that may employ me.
