Course Impressions: Scott Reitz (ITTS) Pistol and Carbine

[PeteG]

On October 6 and 7, I attended a “Level II” pistol course run by Scott Reitz. I also attended a one day carbine refresher on October 8. All three courses were held at PMSC, just outside Pittsburgh.

I don't do "after action reports," since I am never involved in any actions. Nor do I generally write course reviews. But this course had some unique advantages I would like people to think about, before Scott Reitz stops teaching. Of course, these are just my impressions, but, for what they are worth ...

The class was comprised of mature individuals. The great majority of those present were in their 40’s or older. Half were older than 55. One fellow had his son with him (a police officer who looked like he was in his late 20's), and one fellow I made to be in his mid-30’s. Everyone there and had significant prior training. A couple of the guys I know had hundreds of hours of formal instruction, and several were decorated combat veterans. As a consequence, everyone present was there to shut up and listen, and nobody was there to show anyone what he knew or get his “I trained with that guy” merit badge.

Mr. Reitz was invited by the FIRE Institute to do these courses precisely because he has more specific experience with (notice I said with, not necessarily in) actual gun fights than anyone currently teaching. He has made a study of those fights and the outcomes (good and bad).

He also has a reputation for being very direct, even where his views may offend lifetime members of the “good buddy’s tactical club” or people who sell gear and equipment. If you can induce him to say what he thinks, he doesn’t actually give a damn who likes it. I believe he lived up to that reputation.

He also has a reputation for being ... uh ... brusque and opinionated. I was, therefore, prepared to be offended. This portion of his reputation turned out to be unjustified. The man was a complete professional. He was not working with a class of police recruits who were having firearms training imposed upon them over their objections, and adjusted his presentation style accordingly. He is an intense person, but was never, in my opinion, imperious, offensive or out of line. After 36 years on a very active police force (about 20 years in Metro Division of the LAPD, doing exclusively high-risk warrant service and felony arrests, raiding crack houses and the like), and having instructed well over 150,000 people, I figure he’s entitled to be opinionated. He was always respectful of those present (although his disdain for some not present did show from time-to-time).

The aspect of Scott Reitz' instruction I found to be so satisfying was his emphasis on being able to think under stress, training to the fact one will not perform up to practice standards in a fight, and thinking hard about training priorities. For example, he spent a very substantial amount of time going over why it is important to shoot MORE SLOWLY. That heresy is a product of the notion that one should not shoot faster than one can see, comprehend, and then make a good decision. There were plenty of exercises to show how long that process can take. (Hint: it’s more than 1.5 seconds.)

I have a friend who says “One should not train to shoot faster than they can think." Indeed.

We all had to slow way down in circumstances where we had to make decisions while presenting our weapon. It's one thing when you know all the brown targets get shot and none of the white ones do; there is nothing to decide. But if one actually has to perceive his situation and then make decisions, it is very, very different. A really frightened individual in a confusing, dynamic scenario takes even longer to figure things out. It is not likely he will be able to shoot ONE target in five seconds, let alone five targets in five seconds. The exercises amply demonstrated this.

This is not to say he did not emphasize speed in some aspects of what we do. He advocated moving very fast preparatory to shooting, and offered a number of methods to get things done quickly. The point was to know the difference between when to move very fast and when to move deliberately.

I had a high degree of confidence in what he was telling me, but not because of his resume. Personally, I give little weight to an instructor being an ex-anything, or even the number of documented fights one has been in. What does impress me is when a fellow can to give reasons for everything he recommends or teaches which are rooted in specific historic events, and which have been tested across significant periods of time (decades). This is not the same thing as explaining a theory.

Mr. Reitz has gone back and analyzed hundreds of shootings (those in which he was involved and many more in which he was not involved) in very great detail. He can now tie his teachings directly to situations where doing it one way caused a problem and doing it another way avoided the problem. He can also articulate, on demand, what portions of actual altercations led to the adoption or abandonment of various techniques or equipment or theories, and his conclusions regarding where one’s priorities should lie. (Usually no "demand" was necessary; he usually incorporated the experiences upon which he bases what he teaches into his presentation as a matter of course.)

He never said “this is how we did it” or “this is how it is done by [fill in your favorite legendary military unit].” Rather, he spoke about particular incidents: dates; names of the parties involved on both sides and the roles they played; how the situation developed; arms used; distances at which various things occurred; the injuries sustained; why people were where they were; what went wrong; and often even the legal consequences.

I it obvious he has benefited greatly from the experience he has gained testifying as an expert witness. Being cross-examined teaches one how to very specific, to avoid theories and generalities, and when to say “I don’t know.”

I also believe he completely understands the psychology of a fight.

Needless to say, Mr. Reitz is unimpressed with "split times" or how you hold your pistol. He had many examples of fast, accurate shooters (including one fellow who had won the Bianchi Cup) who came up short in the fighting department. After describing in detail the experiences of officers who found themselves fighting for their lives in extremely difficult circumstances – I mean hair-raising, violent bloody messes – he might turn and smile and say, “Yeah, Junior, why don’t you tell me about your weaver or isosceles.” I think it is fair to say he is among those very experienced "grey heads" who chuckle darkly over those who dwell on such matters.

He shoots a carbine with his elbow up, butt stock in the shoulder pocket, and his support hand OPEN, cupping the forend. He got hits on the range, and I don't doubt the reports he got hits on the street. When asked about things like the absence of a shoulder pocket in body armor, he said “you don’t use the pocket when you wear body armor”.

Duh.

Nor does one stick their elbow out when they go through a doorway. We also duck our heads when we go under a low branch or into a room with a low ceiling. That does not mean we learn to shoot with our heads ducked in case we encounter a low branch. But I digress …

This is not the guy to whom I would recommend someone who just wants to get started on the fundamentals. One can develop a solid grounding in the mechanical aspects of shooting and moving from a lot of people. One should go to Scott Reitz when he understands the fundamental physical requirements of effective gun handling and marksmanship, and wants to get and keep his head straight about what, among all the competing noise, is important to achieving a favorable outcome in a fight, and what is not.

We are bringing him back next year. Date to be announced.

Peter

[ar15jules]

Thank you for the review.
Jules

[Shawn.L]

Thanks for the whatever it is you want to call your course review Peter

[orionz06]

Pete,
With your extensive training resume did this class change anything for you? Anything come out of it that is making you do things differently?

[Shawn.L]

Pete,
With your extensive training resume did this class change anything for you? Anything come out of it that is making you do things differently?

Seems to me the bulk of this review is more about confirmation of pre existing opinions than anything else.

[DaveM55]

When's Scott Reitz coming back?

relax Shawn.

[PeteG]

Pete,
With your extensive training resume did this class change anything for you? Anything come out of it that is making you do things differently?

Boy, that's a good question.

Most of what I got out of this course was in the area of perspective on how fights happen. A lot of it was confirmatory, but nailed down with a lot of detail about specific fights between specific people.

As I hope I conveyed in describing the course, this one is not for people who are looking to learn how to do things; it is more for people who have found a way that works for them, and are interested in doing what they do better. Given the composition of the class, it was directed to the 90% of fighting with guns that occurs between one's ears. In that regard, it was the first course I have taken in many years I could describe as inspirational.

Specifically in terms of changes, it did change my mind about how some things happen. Reitz was involved in a lot more planned confrontations that most people, and that brought him into contact with gang members, and even some individuals, who had also planned confrontations (including ambushes). While I have often thought about ambushes in the nature of being boxed in on a sidewalk or an ATM, a carjacking or robbery at a traffic light, I don't feel I have previously given enough consideration to just how elaborate some ambushes can be. There's not much one can DO differently about them, except to be aware and try to avoid them. (Not being a uniformed policeman helps in that regard.)

In terms of "doing" things, Reitz did give me a good look at some changes in manual of arms for AR/M4 rifles that I liked. I won't personally be using them, simply because I have so many years invested in doing what I do now, which works. But I will definitely include them as options when I show the material to people just starting out; they are well thought out, effective and worthy of consideration.

I am going to include a pistol on my vest, which I never did before.

He also caught me doing something with my revolver which I should not have. I am going to fix that one for sure. (I'm not telling what it was; I have suffered enough for it ).

That's about all I can think of in terms of changing how I do things, at least at the moment.

The longer one trains with firearms, the fewer things one is going to find in any given course that is different, and represents such an improvement that it warrants making changes. This is a consequence of the law of diminishing returns. But that does not mean one does not learn anything.

[PeteG]

Seems to me the bulk of this review is more about confirmation of pre existing opinions than anything else.

Actually, Mr. Rietiz confirmed a lot for me. Mostly facts. That was one thing I found so very refreshing about his approach to the whole subject matter: opinions counted for nothing. Theories counted for nothing.

One of his primary instructional methods was, when discussing a popular notion, to put it in the context of a well documented fight. He never responded to any theoretical proposition with another theory; it was always, "here is how this went down, now, how does that work."

I can only think of a few people who can do that.

[PeteG]

When's Scott Reitz coming back?

We don't have a date yet. He has trial schedules to accommodate, and does most of his training at his facility in So. Cal. We should have it nailed down in a month or so. I will post it in the training section of this Board.

[Shawn.L]

Actually, Mr. Rietiz confirmed a lot for me. Mostly facts. That was one thing I found so very refreshing about his approach to the whole subject matter: opinions counted for nothing. Theories counted for nothing.

One of his primary instructional methods was, when discussing a popular notion, to put it in the context of a well documented fight. He never responded to any theoretical proposition with another theory; it was always, "here is how this went down, now, how does that work."

I can only think of a few people who can do that.

Anthony mentioned in the yahoo group discussion that this paired up with Mr Reitz book. Have you read the book? Are many (or all?) of the examples the same ? I might pick a copy up.