Have I been practicing all wrong?

[DMK]

Then Youve never seen a true tactical pistol course being run by professional instructors.

I've been shooting for a long while and have done the USPSA thing (which is very fun). I do need/want to take an appropriate Conceal Carry Handgun class though.

It seems like everyone and his cousin runs a class these days though. It's hard to determine what's worthwhile and what's not, along with who teaches a class appropriate to private citizens vs LEOs and Military/Contractors.

 

[Sharkbite]

Quote:
Then Youve never seen a true tactical pistol course being run by professional instructors.
Yep.

Loved the FAS4 class at the Firearms Academy of Seattle this past weekend.

pax

Lol...shameless plug for Marty??? He does a great job.

As to the "perfect stance" discussion. Let me give my perspective.

First, i taught at one of the major Weaver stance schools for almost 10years. That school (like most) has a tiered course offering system. Take the "basic" course and work up the ladder to the "advanced" courses.
I was almost always the Rangemaster for the adv tactical courses.

In that class we shot from and around vehicles. From unconventional positions, form the ground and around cover and at long distances with the handgun (im talking 200m +)
Now in those conditions you are NOT going to get a perfect Weaver stance. What i told my students is "get what you can of the foundational skills".

As an example. You can not get a "perfect Weaver" shooting out the back window of a vehicle from the drivers seat....get what you can. That usually means only a proper grip on the pistol and good trigger control.

If standing behind a building corner you can get more of the foundational skills into play.

Its kind of like what i teach about using the sights in a fight...get what you can. If the action is so fast and close that you cant use sights, then dont. If you have the time and space to extend the gun fully but not align the sights, then dont. If however you CAN get the sights lined up..by all means DO SO.

But an attempt to stand however you want as a begining step to effective and efficient use of the pistol is going to end in sub-optimal performance. Lay a solid foundation and you will be able to adapt that to changing conditions. Lay no foundation and things fall apart QUICKLY

 

[Sharkbite]

I've been shooting for a long while and have done the USPSA thing (which is very fun). I do need/want to take an appropriate Conceal Carry Handgun class.

It seems like everyone and his cousin runs a class these days though. It's hard to determine what's worthwhile and what's not, along with who teaches a class appropriate to private citizens vs LEOs and Military/Contractors.

Brother...thats a good attitude. Too many guys that have been "shooting for a long while" wont admit to needing training. I liken it to my new hobby of Golf. I was able to go out and hit the ball. But a cpl lessons with the "Pro" really helped.

You dont say where you live, so specific course recommendations are hard. As a general rule, check out
Marty Hays @ firearms training in Seattle ( thats for you Pax)
Tom Givins @ Rangemasters
Rob Pincus @ ICE training (i taught with Rob at Valhalla)
Gunsite (heavy Weaver based curriculum )
I would recommend Front Sight but its turned into a huge numbers game. With a corresponding watering down of the quality of instruction. However, you can get some cheap course coupons and it gets you a weekend in Vegas

 

[Erno86]

I've never been in a gunfight...and I tend to agree with Cunningham on a charging attacker at close range --- due to the high probability that a defender will square-up to a close range running attacker --- like a offensive football lineman that squares-up to a charging defensive lineman; whether trained in the Weaver Stance or not.

That said...the isosceles stance --- IMHO --- should be the most preferred stance, that especially involves a close-range running attacker --- whether using one or two hands too hold the gun. Using one hand gun support, the shooter will be able to have a clenched fist at chest height if the fight progresses to hand to hand combat.

A Weaver Stance will place the shooter in a stance for receiving a possible double lung hit. An Isosceles Stance will afford the chance of the shooter receiving a possible single lung hit.

On close range shots....a shooter should train not to use the sights for a center impact hit that involves the shooter to get off a shot that requires speed. The guns sights --- with training --- should come up naturally to eye height subconsciously with the sights almost in perfect alignment ---- with the shooter pressing the trigger at a close range attacker.


Cheers,

Erno

 

[WVsig]

I've been shooting for a long while and have done the USPSA thing (which is very fun). I do need/want to take an appropriate Conceal Carry Handgun class though.

It seems like everyone and his cousin runs a class these days though. It's hard to determine what's worthwhile and what's not, along with who teaches a class appropriate to private citizens vs LEOs and Military/Contractors.

Here is a great site with top level trainers in locations all over the US.

http://aliastraining.com/

Jeff Gonzales, Ken Hackathorn & Mike Pannone all offer concealed carry oriented classes.

 

[raimius]

I'll add to the previous list:
Combat Shooting and Tactics in TX has good classes, although finding a civilian-centered one might be difficult, as Paul Howe mostly teaches mil/leo based courses.

SSV Group in Colorado is a smaller one, but currently does a lot more basic/intermediate courses. (I know the owner quite well, and he takes both shooting skills and teaching methods seriously.)

 

[DMK]

Brother...thats a good attitude. Too many guys that have been "shooting for a long while" wont admit to needing training. I liken it to my new hobby of Golf. I was able to go out and hit the ball. But a cpl lessons with the "Pro" really helped.

You dont say where you live, so specific course recommendations are hard. As a general rule, check out

I'm a firm believer in being a lifelong student. There's always more to learn and sometimes you do need to go back and review your earlier studies to reinforce the basics.

I'm in Western NC. I really would like to take a Rob Pincus / ICE training class. That's where Cunningham's "Combat Focus" stuff comes from. I think I will get some time off to take one of these in VA.

http://www.combatfocusshooting.com/

Thanks for that link WVsig!

 

[DMK]

That said...the isosceles stance --- IMHO --- should be the most preferred stance, that especially involves a close-range running attacker ...

On close range shots....a shooter should train not to use the sights for a center impact hit that involves the shooter to get off a shot that requires speed. The guns sights --- with training --- should come up naturally to eye height subconsciously with the sights almost in perfect alignment ---- with the shooter pressing the trigger at a close range attacker.

This seems very consistent with what Cunningham is saying.

I'm still a little fuzzy on the instinctive stance he's advocating (which looks to me like if you jumped from about 3 or 4 feet and landed square this would be about right with a slight squat, a low CG and weight slightly forward), but it seems to me that if you practiced Isosceles you'd be in a familiar place if/when instinct kicked in.

Let me clarify something mentioned earlier also. Some folks said that when you give a new shooter a gun, that they will instinctively lean back and adopt poor form. That's not what Cunningham is talking about when discussing instinct. He's referring to the instinctive defensive stance people take without any weapon in their hands. That's the starting point of the stance. He's not saying that weapons handling would or should be instinctive. He's only advocating that you train with your initial unarmed reactions in mind. At least, that's my understanding.

I think this explains it better than i have been:
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/combat-focus-shooting/

 

[FireForged]

Originally Posted by DMK
....All I'm saying is that if attacked, the first thing one needs to do is get out of the line of attack (be it gun, knife, crowbar, whatever). The next thing you need to do is put something between you and your attacker if possible. After that, you need to draw your weapon from concealment ...

I have been in plenty of scrapes in my lifetime and no two were ever the same. Certainly not enough to have some sort of checklist like you describe. Any decision to move, move to where or stay put is very subjective and greatly dependent on what is happening. The first thing you may need to do is stay exactly where you are. The first thing you may need to do is step into it not move away from it... it just all depends. Conflict and violence are very fluid and dynamic events, there is no set 1-2-3.

 

[Brit]

The biggest fight I was ever in (aged 33) I was walking towards 4 yobos, who were sitting at a booth in an Indian Restaurant in the UK. Words had been exchanged.

I was in mid stride, the aggressive one, the one I was walking towards, stood up, fists rising!

When my flat foot kick hit him in the chest, breaking 3 ribs.

A/ I had never done this move before.

B/ Wearing glasses, collar and tie, good crease in pants, shinny black shoes (Steel toe caps) every move slowed down! Like a slo mo movie.

Fight beginning to end, max 2 minutes, if that.

No possibility of carrying a gun in the UK, if I had of been carrying one, same scenario by me. Stance? Must say I enjoyed it, the crazy 60s.

At almost 80? I have calmed down, a lot.

 

[James K]

"Can you tell me who teaches that class?"

I have had a number of people tell me they took classes just like that, and you only need to read the posts on this thread to see that many people believe firmly in the "proper stance", the "preferred stance", and of "standing" properly. Might I somewhat timidly suggest that when being fired on, standing erect facing the opponent might not be a good idea. But then I am not an expert.

Jim

 

[Frank Ettin]

I have had a number of people tell me they took classes just like that, and you only need to read the posts on this thread to see that many people believe firmly in the "proper stance", the "preferred stance", and of "standing" properly....

Some folks have mentioned things about some basic principles and balance, but no one has said here anything remotely like:

...I still don't understand the thinking that I have to carry a large protractor and make sure my feet are at a perfect 45 degree angle before I can return fire or even draw my gun. It seems to me that such "advanced" skills do not enhance the basics, they destroy the basics. Classes that concentrate on the tiny details (your feet must be at 45°, not 44° or 46°)....

....Might I somewhat timidly suggest that when being fired on, standing erect facing the opponent might not be a good idea....

I don't recall anyone here saying anything different.

 

[pax]

Fascinating.

There's apparently some kind of glitch in the computer, that makes James' screen say something that nobody else typed.

Weird.

pax