Round Chambering Techniques

[BerksCountyDave]

Originally Posted by d90king

Training ends when you are buried. Those that take classes, and take their training seriously, should expect it to be a lifelong journey, not a weekend fix. No matter what you think you know you can always learn more from getting instruction by top tier instructors.

All instructors offer slightly varying tactics for accomplishing the same goals... I prefer Vickers personally, but I will continue to train with many other outfits as time permits. My goal is to take two to three classes a year and to then practice at the minimum 2k rounds a month...

If you don't use it, you WILL lose it...

It's also important to remember the importance of dry fire practice. I would venture to say that MOST shooters can't afford to fire 2K rounds per month.

[DPB]

Interesting. I thought from reading it that the non shooting parts represented a couple hours all together. May just be a lack of reading comprehension on my part.

I'm absolutely not a fan of high round count beginner classes.

I would say that in order to for your handgun to be a legitimate part of your defensive plan, you need to be able to handle it safely, load and unload it, have some comprehension of grip/stance/sight alignment and picture/trigger control/recoil management, be able to draw it from a concealed holster, maneuver the gun around non threats, shoot with both hands or either hand, and put multiple reasonable hits on a reasonable target in a reasonable time.

Not saying each on has to be beaten to death, but you need some hands on with all these subjects.

That's the minimum. There are additional desireable skills, such as reloading, multiple target engagement, moving off the line of attack, etc.

These could easily fill two days.

"Is it better to learn to handle/manage the confrontation so that most of your gunfights are avoided, or is it better to be a gunfighting ace who does not avoid the gunfight?"

Obviously, neither. But if you've got no shooting skills, you had better avoid all, not most, of your gunfights.

"there's only so much you can drag the novice shooter up the learning curve in a 2 days."

That's exactly my point. A two day class that is narrowly focused is a compromise. A two day class covering a wide variety of subjects is a bigger compromise.

I'm hoping most people understand that there is no "one and done" class or training event.

I actually don't think LFI-1 is primarily a shooting class at all, I think it's primarily a legal class, with some shooting thrown in.

Obviously, you got a lot out of Farnam's class. Do you think the beginner gains enough skill in Defensive Handgun alone for the handgun to be an effective tool?

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by BerksCountyDave

It's also important to remember the importance of dry fire practice. I would venture to say that MOST shooters can't afford to fire 2K rounds per month.

Dry fire and continuous training separate the top 0.1% from the rest. It's possible that 0.1% is even too high.

As I said before, sometimes it's hard for long time gun people to remember what it was like being a beginner, which is the stage the casual shooter tends to stay near. If you look at most gunowners, even most CCW holders, most do not take even a single weekend course; or dry fire ever; or go to the range more than 2 or 3 times a year at most.

It is certainly desirable that all or most shooters be that dedicated, but the reality is that most won't. This is the reality that guys teaching a basic class have to accept.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by DPB

I actually don't think LFI-1 is primarily a shooting class at all, I think it's primarily a legal class, with some shooting thrown in.

In the same way, some basic weekend classes should perhaps be thought of as primarily a "overall self defense with a handgun, and all the other implications" class, with some shooting thrown in.

Obviously, you got a lot out of Farnam's class.

I did, precisely because it wasn't a standard shooting class.

Do you think the beginner gains enough skill in Defensive Handgun alone for the handgun to be an effective tool?

Yes, absolutely, because Farnam doesn't try to push the fringe concepts -- weak-hand only manipulations; esoteric malfunction clearances, etc...the "nice to know" -- as much as the core of "need to know." If you come right down to it, the one shooting "need to know" is to be able to draw and hit a possibly moving, close range target, preferably using a technique that will still function if you are target-focused. The "Zipper" is one way to do that. The larger "need to know" is how that action fits into the avoidance, personal space, mindset, legalities bigger picture.

[d90king]

Originally Posted by BerksCountyDave

It's also important to remember the importance of dry fire practice. I would venture to say that MOST shooters can't afford to fire 2K rounds per month.

Agreed! That is why I started a thread on just that topic not long ago. http://forum.pafoa.org/competition-t...how-often.html (Dry Fire Drills? How Often?)

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by DPB

I really question whether you can run a good weekend beginner class that provides both adequate firearms training and defensive tactics.

Teaching armed defensive tactics before students have an adequate capability to deploy the gun and hit a target in a reasonable time is, I believe, irresponsible. If you can't draw and hit a reasonable target at a reasonable range in a reasonable time (for purposes of argument, lets say two rounds in an A/C zone in 2.5 seconds) you are not ready for more advanced armed tasks with the gun. You are either not going to get the gun out in time, or you're going to be launching bullets without them going where you want them to.

In one day, you can get most beginner students to safely deploy the gun and shoot with a reasonable degree of accuracy and consistency. A second day, and you can get them working effectively and efficiently from concealment.

You can also do a one or two day class where you teach some level of unarmed defensive tactics.

I'm a big fan of avoidance and de-escalation, but running the gun is only the least important aspect until you actually have to do it. Then it becomes awfully important.

Agree on all points.

The only thing I'd add that might perhaps clarify your point is that applying tactics as the situation unfolds (e.g. "thinking on your feet") is difficult to do if you're not at a level of "unconscious competence" with respect to marksmanship and weapon manipulation.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by dgg9

What do you mean by "defensive tactics?" If you mean awareness/avoidance/de-escalation techniques, then why are those subservient to pure shooting? Why are legal issues subservient to pure shooting? Trauma care for GSW subservient too?

It only becomes awfully important in a small fraction of DGUs. For every gunfight you may be in, there will be many encounters that can be managed into something else. And shooting the gun won't do you any good if you fail to recognize the event unfolding, fail to shift mindset gears, etc.

In your own subjective, personal rating scheme, "running the gun hard" is #1, but that is simply not true for a lot of trainers, who have taught thousands of students and have some idea of relative importance. They know that most students will take their class and probably never take another, nor will they be at the range weekly, doing IDPA, NTI, etc. So they teach an overall package deal which gives the students something broadly useful that they can take away with them.

It's possible you are conflating the larger mass of casual CCW holders and gun owners with HSLD "gun people." That's simply not true, in the same sense that most drivers are not professional racers. For most casual shooters, a gun is a tool which needs to be integrated into a larger personal risk assessment.

As I said, there are classes for every agenda. There are high round count, nothing-but-pure-shooting classes for those who want that (Andy Stanford's "Surgical Speed Shooting" to name one). There are the "gun as part of the complete picture" classes for those who want them (in particular, Farnam's class is like that; he'll be in Philly in a few months). And everything in between.

dgg9,

I find nothing to disagree with in principle.

However, the only comment I have about the opinions you've formulated and express (based on your training experiences as they relate to the various peripheral topics covered in this thread) is that they are very technically oriented, down to the physiological and neurological level. I don't mean this as a criticism, it's just an observation.

While those two issues are not insignificant, and granted both are important to understand in developing a curricula for a given demographic, the "wild card" is still the individual.

What may be a disadvantageous technique for you may not be for me, or synergy, or DPB, or anyone else following this thread.

I do understand where you're coming from whether it be the distinction between HSLD and CCW or a "failsafe" technique vs. another that "may" be vulnerable to adrenalin dump, etc.

The point I'm attempting to make is that from what I gather in talking to people who have BTDT is that the minutia of detail we discuss in these internet forum threads has little bearing in the outcome of a given engagement. IMO, issues such as situational awareness, lady luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a significant tactical mistake on the part of the threat (or intended victim) has much more to do with the end result than any given technique.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by TonyF

While those two issues are not insignificant, and granted both are important to understand in developing a curricula for a given demographic, the "wild card" is still the individual.

What may be a disadvantageous technique for you may not be for me, or synergy, or DPB, or anyone else following this thread.

Ok, that's true, I suppose, but that kind of precludes ANY discussion of technique, of approach, or of selection, since you can always say that. See my next remark.

I do understand where you're coming from whether it be the distinction between HSLD and CCW or a "failsafe" technique vs. another that "may" be vulnerable to adrenalin dump, etc.

What else can ever be said at the general level, though? Sure, the race is not always to the swift, but isn't that the way to bet? Across the decades, haven't we developed a general idea of how people respond under stress? Sure, this or that individual may be immune, but how can you know that in advance? In advance of knowing how you're going to react, isn't it generally the best bet to select an approach based on you NOT being exceptional?

The point I'm attempting to make is that from what I gather in talking to people who have BTDT is that the minutia of detail we discuss in these internet forum threads has little bearing in the outcome of a given engagement. IMO, issues such as situational awareness, lady luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a significant tactical mistake on the part of the threat (or intended victim) has much more to do with the end result than any given technique.

Well, then, why train?

I do understand all the words you've written, but I'm missing the larger point that you're trying to get across.

Should people not train, since after all, it's mostly luck how it turns out?

Should people invest in fine motor skill techniques, since that doesn't really matter?

Should we not talk about Tactics in a Competition and Tactics forum, since tactics don't matter?

Indeed, I thought the very point of the post you responded to was exactly that "running the gun hard" was NOT that important (relatively speaking) to the novice shooter, as much as awareness, avoidance, managing conflicts, and lot of other non-gun-technical things. I spent a lot of posts basically de-emphasizing the minutia of technique.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I do understand where you're coming from whether it be the distinction between HSLD and CCW or a "failsafe" technique vs. another that "may" be vulnerable to adrenalin dump, etc.

Originally Posted by dgg9

What else can ever be said at the general level, though? Sure, the race is not always to the swift, but isn't that the way to bet? Across the decades, haven't we developed a general idea of how people respond under stress? Sure, this or that individual may be immune, but how can you know that in advance? In advance of knowing how you're going to react, isn't it generally the best bet to select an approach based on you NOT being exceptional?

Well, there obviously isn't a foolproof method of determining who may or may not be immune but the point is, so long as one learns "a" technique and is practiced at it to the level of unconscious competence, which technique is far less a factor than lady luck, etc.

Originally Posted by TonyF

The point I'm attempting to make is that from what I gather in talking to people who have BTDT is that the minutia of detail we discuss in these internet forum threads has little bearing in the outcome of a given engagement. IMO, issues such as situational awareness, lady luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a significant tactical mistake on the part of the threat (or intended victim) has much more to do with the end result than any given technique.

Originally Posted by dgg9

Well, then, why train?

I do understand all the words you've written, but I'm missing the larger point that you're trying to get across.

Should people not train, since after all, it's mostly luck how it turns out?

Should people invest in fine motor skill techniques, since that doesn't really matter?

Should we not talk about Tactics in a Competition and Tactics forum, since tactics don't matter?

Of course I'm not suggesting people should forego training or discussing training related issues. But again, the "weighted" value of one technique that is 5%, or 8%, or 12% "better" than another technique (if they were actually quantifiable), is often overshadowed by variables that are beyond our control.

Originally Posted by dgg9

Indeed, I thought the very point of the post you responded to was exactly that "running the gun hard" was NOT that important (relatively speaking) to the novice shooter, as much as awareness, avoidance, managing conflicts, and lot of other non-gun-technical things. I spent a lot of posts basically de-emphasizing the minutia of technique.

What I was responding to was that I was in agreement with DPB that unconscious competence is a critical first step BEFORE one proceeds to courses that involve tactics. As it applies in this exchange, the point is that "running the gun hard" is irrespective of technique.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Well, there obviously isn't a foolproof method of determining who may or may not be immune but the point is, so long as one learns "a" technique and is practiced at it to the level of unconscious competence, which technique is far less a factor than lady luck, etc.

I think I said in the beginning of the thread that the techniques we're talking about in here are not that important in the big picture...things like reloading are not top-tier considerations. All along, what concerned me was how we go about choosing what to train to do.

The main point of that is, yes, we can train almost anything to be UC in non-stress environments....it's a little harder to predict what will work and what will fall apart in Condition Black. And I mean that in a general way, not just narrowly about reloading, which we all agree is no great deal-breaker.

Sure, lady luck is a factor, maybe even the biggest factor -- but it's out of our control, so there's no real point in dwelling on that. Many things will be out of my control -- luck, the time and place and skill level of my adversary, and much more. I can't obsess over any of that. All I can concentrate on is what's under MY actual control.

To use an analogy: let's say for the moment that health is 90% genetics and 10% diet/exercise. Should we ignore exercise because lady luck, aka genetics, is the bigger factor? Or should we do what's in our power to do?

Of course I'm not suggesting people should forego training or discussing training related issues. But again, the "weighted" value of one technique that is 5%, or 8%, or 12% "better" than another technique (if they were actually quantifiable), is often overshadowed by variables that are beyond our control.

Sure. But again, those factors ARE outside our control.

I'm also not really talking about things like "5% better" -- I have little or no concern about those kind of marginal gradations. My concern was with the concept of choosing an adrenaline-congenial game plan. But not because it's 5% better (in fact, it probably isn't -- going with gross motor skill techniques and non-diagnostic manipulations will probably be clunkier and nowhere near as slick as fine-motor-skill/cognitive-based choices), but because it's IMO more likely to actually be there when you need it, and not fall apart.

What I was responding to was that I was in agreement with DPB that unconscious competence is a critical first step BEFORE one proceeds to courses that involve tactics. As it applies in this exchange, the point is that "running the gun hard" is irrespective of technique.

I think there's been some miscommunication on "tactics." I agree with what you two are saying if by "tactics" you mean "gunfighting tactics," for lack of a better word. That's not was I was talking about. I meant more "overall personal tactics," namely awareness, managing your personal space, keeping eyes on people, and so on. I see all that as at least of equal importance as slick gunhandling. And personally, I think a basic class should feature a lot of that rather than go straight for shooting and manipulations.