Round Chambering Techniques

[synergy]

This is a spin-off, on another thread where a debate started between how "best" to chamber a round in a pistol, from slide lock.
http://forum.pafoa.org/pistols-41/72...-released.html (Drive the mag home.... slide released?)

The two techniques being discussed/ debated were using a thumb on the slide stop/ release to drop the slide....and grabbing the slide using an "hand over top" (or HOT) method to pull the slide to the rear, then release it to chamber the round.

I made the argument FOR using the thumb to release the slide...perhaps too strongly.

I ran into two friends of mine today at the range...who I both highly respect when it comes to shooting. The list of schools they've been to, guys they've trained with, and active "operators" they train with/ talk to....is too long of a list to even get in to. Anyway, as a result of training with so many different guys...they've been exposed to multiple schools of thought on various topics...and today were testing out this very topic, of which is a better technique to use.


Now, we were sitting around discussing the findings, and the results surprised the hell out of me.

Under examination was chambering rounds in the AR using the bolt release, vs. running the charging handle on a emergency reload (empty gun, bolt locked to rear). The average difference between the two techniques for both shooters, under over about a dozen repetitions (with 5 practice reps of each technique done prior to date being recorded and examined) was whopping difference of .03 seconds.

Now, the same thing done with the pistol...and running HOT versus slide release...the difference was about .2 seconds.

With each of the techniques...the use of the control (bolt/slide release) resulted in MORE fumbles of the technique....meaning additional efforts to chamber the round were required (the control was missed initially, and needed to be attempted again) than resulted from manually pulling either the charging handle or slide to the rear.

HOWEVER, the difference in time, was insignificant. Meaning, even fumbling the slide release...the time STILL ended up being just as fast as manually grabbing the slide.


Discussing this...my one friend shared an interesting thought, which I want to share here. The argument for "increased reliability" in performing a technique...really boils down to speed. If the technique is fumbled, it needs to be attempted again....the significance is that doing sometime twice instead of once takes longer. So, speed actually IS the name of the game. You want to get your gun up and running as fast as possible, to put holes in the target you are shooting ASAP.

The argument of using HOT is that you are less likely to fumble the technique...and spend more time fixing that fumble...than if you used a more reliable technique in the first place. What was shown by this initial research, is that in the AR...the difference in time for 2 well practiced shooters, using stock charging handles and bolt releases...was meaningless. .03 seconds isn't jack sh*t. On the pistol, .2 seconds is a little more meaningful.

Now, put into the context of a fight....are there additional considerations? We thought there might be.

1) fights that start out with non-lethal force, can have you breaking bones in your hands, delivering blows to the enemy....once weapons come out (as is often the case...where levels of force rise as the confrontation progresses) you could have some swelling, numbness and pain in your hands.
2) Winter time carry...you could be wearing gloves, which would limit your manual dexterity.
3) There seem to be a LOT of instances of people taking rounds in the hands/ weapon...during gunfights. Your hands are typically right in front of your COM...and right in the BG's line of fire. Realistically, if you were to take hits....you very well may be taking them in your hands.

On the flip side...the dreaded "fumble" of initially missing the control and needing to re-attempt actuating the control...didn't significantly impact your times. So, while you might need to swipe a control twice to make it happen....the time your gun was down, was still less than if you had used HOT, or was within .01's of the time using HOT.



Now, this was the result for guys who train more every 2 weeks than most shooters train every year. BUT, they're still not Robbie Leatham or Larry Vickers. They haven't peaked out, and are still improving their times as they train.

The times seemed to reflect that the technique of thumbing the slide release WAS noticeably faster, especially when not fumbled, than HOT. The increased rate of fumbles narrowed the time difference between the two to .2 seconds on average. However, were you to practice and further refine the motion...then you would see an increased gap between those average times, as the rate of fumbles went down.


So, in seeing the data pour in, I'm sitting here thinking there is a hell of a lot more GRAY between these two camps than there is black and white.

Analyzing the SEALs using HOT, and CAG using slide-stops...makes sense for both of them. Swimming into a hit, in cold water would no doubt increase your rate of fumbles and impact your average time that your weapon is down for. CAG rolling in, in vehicles or choppers aren't as worried about that...and spend a lot more time perfecting room clearing CQB techniques...so they are able to train the fumbles out, and see the time benefits with their chosen technique. The competition heavy hitters fall into this category too, as they spend much more time ironing out their technique, as well.

I'm coming away with a lot more open mind to the topic, as a result of this data...than I ever would have initially thought.

Have you guys run the two techniques on the clock...and what did you find?

[FNG19]

Originally Posted by synergy

Now, the same thing done with the pistol...and running HOT versus slide release...the difference was about .2 seconds.

Interesting post, but I wanted to home in on this point. It was 0.2 seconds while the clock wasn't shooting back, the adrenaline wasn't pumping, there was a known start point, and in every other way an ideal circumstance. Replacing even one of those would magnify that 0.2 seconds enormously.

Also, the specific platform you use is part of the equation. As far as I'm aware, the 1911 has a lever designed to be both a slide lock and a slide release. A Glock, on the other hand, has a stock lever designed to be a slide lock. On the release/rack end of the spectrum, that firearm is intended to be racked HOT-style.

[synergy]

Originally Posted by FNG19

Interesting post, but I wanted to home in on this point. It was 0.2 seconds while the clock wasn't shooting back, the adrenaline wasn't pumping, there was a known start point, and in every other way an ideal circumstance. Replacing even one of those would magnify that 0.2 seconds enormously.

Also, the specific platform you use is part of the equation. As far as I'm aware, the 1911 has a lever designed to be both a slide lock and a slide release. A Glock, on the other hand, has a stock lever designed to be a slide lock. On the release/rack end of the spectrum, that firearm is intended to be racked HOT-style.

The conditions of the test where the same for both techniques. Both techniques have been used in combat by elite shooters...and both have been verified as viable.
Increased stress would increase fumbles for BOTH techniques. They're planning on doing more testing on this...with higher stress levels and a larger sample. The differences in their times was so small, they want to continue to gather data.

A 1911 was used by one shooter, a Glock for the other. You could argue that the Glock is just as "designed" to have the slide stop thumbed as well...as their tactical/practical models come with extended slide stops to make thumbing that control easier for some. There is no alteration to the mechanism, other than just making it larger (which becomes a problem for some, and a solution for others). None the less, it is available and suitable for anyone who finds a benefit to the larger sized control, and can be easily installed with no negative effects on function.

[FNG19]

Originally Posted by synergy

The conditions of the test where the same for both techniques. Both techniques have been used in combat by elite shooters...and both have been verified as viable.

Excellent points all around. I failed to mention one important caveat to my comments: I was considering the average (or above average) civilian shooter, as opposed to combat-ready military, regularly-training LEO, etc. High quality, higher intensity training leads to better skills, certainly. It sounds like your friends definitely fall into that category. I'll be quite interested to see how those differences magnify for them under stress.

[synergy]

Originally Posted by Shawn.L

OTOH there is also a time for no reload.

I was in a Randy Cain close quarters tactics class this weekend.

we did many drills up close and personal, shooting from retention. On one I had forgot to tac load after the last drill. I got in my boomboomboomboom 2 to the body from retention two to the pelvis and SLIDE LOCK. I ran in a new mag and finished the drill.

Randy says "why?"

"He's in your fucking face trying to kill you, shove the fuckin pistol into his teeth! You dont got time to be dickin around with the gun! Fuckin give it to him !"

so.........

from a SD perspective what exactly are we talking about here?

am I really in a life and death struggle in a extended gunfight at some distance? Am I moving to cover? How close is this threat?

and........

while reloading do you stop moving?

I would say NO

I'm either closing in on the threat, retreating to create distance, or moving to cover. so....... either technique will prob be faster than my movement and regaining my sight picture.

In a game enviroment .2 sec may lose you a match, and finding that edge is paramount. In a sudden violent encounter I hope I live long enough to make it to slide lock, and if I do, I got a whole notha list of problems, and I better not just be reloading fast if reloading at all, but doing it in a way I am 100% on.

But there is NO 100%.

Even running the slide or charging handle...there still were fumbles...and will be in real life.

It's an unfortunate reality....but still the reality we're stuck with.

Both techniques can be buggered up...and I saw both fail well trained shooters today, while they rushed and tried to add a little stress into the mix.

OTOH, "fixing bayonets" and going hands on shouldn't be ignored... and certainly has its place. And not to be rude or anything...but I don't think it impacts the decision on which technique to choose.

[synergy]

Originally Posted by FNG19

Excellent points all around. I failed to mention one important caveat to my comments: I was considering the average (or above average) civilian shooter, as opposed to combat-ready military, regularly-training LEO, etc. High quality, higher intensity training leads to better skills, certainly. It sounds like your friends definitely fall into that category. I'll be quite interested to see how those differences magnify for them under stress.

Agreed.

I've seen less disciplined shooters crumble under the stress of an IDPA match. They got a stoppage, and just stared at their pistol...expecting an intense stare to fix it for them.

Either technique requires deliberate, conscious thought to apply. I think people maintaining the ability to think through problems is just as big of a speed bump as "decreased fine motor skills"... if not a bigger one, when confronted with an overwhelming amount of stress.

[d90king]

Kinda a broad spectrum of topics to discuss in one thread... I would have thought it better to do one for pistols and one for rifles...

For pistols I find that having the pistol up in your work space with a full view of the task at hand but also being able to see down range is key. You can insert the magazine with both feel and sight using this method and I think most would agree on this side of the discussion. Here is a pic of LAV and his opinion...Notice the rolling of the pistol and where he is doing the reload. In the second pic notice the indexing of the magazine.


Now as far as how to go from slide lock to engaging in the quickest manner LAV promotes using the SS. However he also recommends using the method that is the fastest and most consistent method for you. He is not someone that says "this is the only way to get the task done". IMHO one of the signs of a great instructor...

I use the SS with my weak thumb as it is returning to the pistol during the re-gripping sequence, releasing it as you obtain your grip so you can immediately re-engage your target. You will see Hk and Glock shooters doing it with their strong thumb because of its placement, but on a 1911 it is faster because of the SS placement using your weak hand (unless you have Synergy thumbs)... With this method you are taking away fine motor skills and turning it into one fluid motion. I prefer an extended SS on a 1911 so that you have a little shelf for your weak thumb. I will take some pics of a really good one that Vickers used when he designed the Vickers pistol built by Nighthawk.

So in short, you run dry, hit mag release as you are bringing the pistol up into your work space, you rotate the pistol with your strong hand as you are pulling your extra mag (grabbing as much of the exposed mag as you can), fingers indexed up the entire magazine, your finger feels and your eyes see the magwell, then guide the mag back into the magwell and drive it home, rotate pistol back into your natural grip at the same time you are bringing your weak hand back onto the pistol and dropping the slide simultaneously as you are reacquiring your sights and grip, punch out and then breaking the shot... It sounds long but when done properly it is very fast...

I am far from a writer but am describing my sequence the best I can.

[synergy]

Originally Posted by d90king

Kinda a broad spectrum of topics to discuss in one thread... I would have thought it better to do one for pistols and one for rifles...

I thought about it....but the schools of thought apply to both systems.

Regarding reloading in your workspace...I have NO argument there, at all. It certainly seems to help the entire process in terms of speed, and the reliability/ security of the process.

If folks want to perform similar tests where they leave the pistol at full extension, and indexed on the target...then have at it and share the results.
Regarding the whole loosing sight of the target...maybe someone can try both techniques on some movers and see if that impacts performance.

[d90king]

Originally Posted by synergy

The two techniques being discussed/ debated were using a thumb on the slide stop/ release to drop the slide....and grabbing the slide using an "hand over top" (or HOT) method to pull the slide to the rear, then release it to chamber the round.

Use what method you fight best with.

I made the argument FOR using the thumb to release the slide...perhaps too strongly.

If you find a method that works well for you this is not uncommon due to having positive experiences with that method.

Under examination was chambering rounds in the AR using the bolt release, vs. running the charging handle on a emergency reload (empty gun, bolt locked to rear).

Personally I prefer using the paddle method... It has proven the fastest and most consistent method for me... But it will be interesting to see the various techniques during the 3 day Vickers Carbine/Pistol II class at the end of next month.

The average difference between the two techniques for both shooters, under over about a dozen repetitions (with 5 practice reps of each technique done prior to date being recorded and examined) was whopping difference of .03 seconds.

Sometimes using very advanced shooters can give you a false barometer if you catch my drift. I think when teaching you should try and use the KISS principle when possible because very few shooters will have the skill of the guys comparing a couple tenths to determine that "fastest' methodology.

Now, the same thing done with the pistol...and running HOT versus slide release...the difference was about .2 seconds.

Once again I think it depends on the shooter but I find benefits to both methods with proper practice and also depending on equipment.

With each of the techniques...the use of the control (bolt/slide release) resulted in MORE fumbles of the technique....meaning additional efforts to chamber the round were required (the control was missed initially, and needed to be attempted again) than resulted from manually pulling either the charging handle or slide to the rear.

I have seen it on both sides though... You will see guys miss the paddle but you will also see guys not fully charge the rifle or have there hand slide off the pistol... The same applies for charging an AK, do I go over or under?!?!?...

HOWEVER, the difference in time, was insignificant. Meaning, even fumbling the slide release...the time STILL ended up being just as fast as manually grabbing the slide.

Keep your shooters skill set in mind when comparing here...

Discussing this...my one friend shared an interesting thought, which I want to share here. The argument for "increased reliability" in performing a technique...really boils down to speed. If the technique is fumbled, it needs to be attempted again....the significance is that doing sometime twice instead of once takes longer. So, speed actually IS the name of the game. You want to get your gun up and running as fast as possible, to put holes in the target you are shooting ASAP.

I sometimes think we can get caught up in fractions when we should be looking at what way is more idiot proof. I think anytime you can reduce using fine motor skill you are always better off. But in the same breath you must find a method that allows you the quickest route getting back into the fight which all starts by getting a round chambered AND getting your weapon back into its proper grip quickly...

The argument of using HOT is that you are less likely to fumble the technique...and spend more time fixing that fumble...than if you used a more reliable technique in the first place. What was shown by this initial research, is that in the AR...the difference in time for 2 well practiced shooters, using stock charging handles and bolt releases...was meaningless. .03 seconds isn't jack sh*t. On the pistol, .2 seconds is a little more meaningful.

Once again keep you are using very advanced shooters as test dummies... I could care less about a few tenths if whatever the method I choose allows consistency time and time again. Keeping in mind there is the argument we have discussed that much of this should be done behind cover...

Now, put into the context of a fight....are there additional considerations? We thought there might be.

1) fights that start out with non-lethal force, can have you breaking bones in your hands, delivering blows to the enemy....once weapons come out (as is often the case...where levels of force rise as the confrontation progresses) you could have some swelling, numbness and pain in your hands.
2) Winter time carry...you could be wearing gloves, which would limit your manual dexterity.
3) There seem to be a LOT of instances of people taking rounds in the hands/ weapon...during gunfights. Your hands are typically right in front of your COM...and right in the BG's line of fire. Realistically, if you were to take hits....you very well may be taking them in your hands.

On the flip side...the dreaded "fumble" of initially missing the control and needing to re-attempt actuating the control...didn't significantly impact your times. So, while you might need to swipe a control twice to make it happen....the time your gun was down, was still less than if you had used HOT, or was within .01's of the time using HOT.



Now, this was the result for guys who train more every 2 weeks than most shooters train every year. BUT, they're still not Robbie Leatham or Larry Vickers. They haven't peaked out, and are still improving their times as they train.

The times seemed to reflect that the technique of thumbing the slide release WAS noticeably faster, especially when not fumbled, than HOT. The increased rate of fumbles narrowed the time difference between the two to .2 seconds on average. However, were you to practice and further refine the motion...then you would see an increased gap between those average times, as the rate of fumbles went down.


So, in seeing the data pour in, I'm sitting here thinking there is a hell of a lot more GRAY between these two camps than there is black and white.

Analyzing the SEALs using HOT, and CAG using slide-stops...makes sense for both of them. Swimming into a hit, in cold water would no doubt increase your rate of fumbles and impact your average time that your weapon is down for. CAG rolling in, in vehicles or choppers aren't as worried about that...and spend a lot more time perfecting room clearing CQB techniques...so they are able to train the fumbles out, and see the time benefits with their chosen technique. The competition heavy hitters fall into this category too, as they spend much more time ironing out their technique, as well.

I'm coming away with a lot more open mind to the topic, as a result of this data...than I ever would have initially thought.

Have you guys run the two techniques on the clock...and what did you find?

To many factors to really address in one post... I will say people should dress ready for a gun fight if they are armed and prepared for one. Gloves are something that I wont use if carrying...

Great post and thread by the way. I think it is great we are finally having some intelligent discussion on tactics lately...

[Lycanthrope]

Originally Posted by synergy

Under examination was chambering rounds in the AR using the bolt release, vs. running the charging handle on a emergency reload (empty gun, bolt locked to rear). The average difference between the two techniques for both shooters, under over about a dozen repetitions (with 5 practice reps of each technique done prior to date being recorded and examined) was whopping difference of .03 seconds.

Now, the same thing done with the pistol...and running HOT versus slide release...the difference was about .2 seconds.

.2 seconds is an eternity. People would swap a testicle for a .2 faster drawstroke.....

Now on the AR....so you get two chances and still can end up as good as the charging handle? How much faster is it if you don't miss the bolt release?

Which technique did they have more experience with.

Lycancoorelationdoesn'tmeancausationthrope