Pistol Ready Positions: Pros and Cons

[RX-79G]

I'll share my thoughts on this, though I doubt I'll get much agreement:

The SWAT training mentality is great for cops, but the over-reliance on two handed techniques for civilian SD is misplaced.

Any technique that requires two hands to be preformed safely is inappropriate for use by people like us. The real world has doors to open, family members guide, dogs to restrain, lights to flip on, muzzles to push away and people to push aside. If your training is to do everything with both hands you are going to risk trying to do off hand things with your gun because your brain isn’t going to want to give up that hold. If you treat your off hand as an assist in shooting accurately but not a necessity to correctly maneuver the gun I think you’ll be better off when you’re already fighting for your life.

The worst problem I can see with Sul is that the muzzle direction is affected by the presence of the off hand, since you only have three primary hand fingers on the gun and the off hand props the muzzle away from the body. If you suddenly bring the off hand up to do something necessary, you’ve lost muzzle control. That doesn’t seem like a great ready position. It is also far from discreet: Human females have breasts (no other mammal does) because humans naturally look at chests. We wear ties, necklaces, funny t-shirts on our chests and we expect them to be noticed.

I use neutral ready or some variation when the gun is immediately needed. I use a variation on close-quarter hold the rest of the time – I index my forearm on top of my hip bone and point the gun away from people with my wrist. In terms of speed, I can shoot from this position as fast as any other – just not as accurately (but it is for defense at close ranges, not a tactical assault and room clearing). It is also fairly discreet since the gun is tucked into my side.

While no one is ever going to call me a shooting expert, I do think that the training schools are teaching to a very, very specific type of police oriented scenario. As demonstrated by the whole “slide release” controversy, trainers have ideas that they’ve developed over time that don’t necessarily reflect reality – Army SD teaches using the slide release for consistency in total opposition to many trainers.

I’m not saying that the trainers are teaching badly, I’m saying that a civilian fighting for his life with a pistol ought to have their positions reflect a broader range of possibilities, and I advocate more emphasis on getting things done with just the shooting hand since WE do not have a team, a vest or a realistic expectation of the type of threat we may face. Training like a cop only sets false expectations and muscle memory conflicts, IMHO.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Any technique that requires two hands to be preformed safely is inappropriate for use by people like us. The real world has doors to open, family members guide, dogs to restrain, lights to flip on, muzzles to push away and people to push aside...

Yes indeed. Which is why SUL is useful for certain purposes and not for others.

If you want some training and experience dealing with those sorts of situations, take a few classes at a school like Gunsite with shoothouses, and/or get involved in IDPA/USPSA competition.

At Gunsite we go through simulators/shoothouses on multiple occasions -- opening doors and dealing with obstacles. In my experience in USPSA competition we do that sort of thing as well.

...While no one is ever going to call me a shooting expert, I do think that the training schools are teaching to a very, very specific type of police oriented scenario...

So it appears that you have no experience with training schools. I can tell you from personal experience that Gunsite, Massad Ayoob, Louis Awerbuck and Walt Marshall do not teach "police oriented senarios."

 

[RX-79G]

I shoot IDPA. And I already said that I don't think the schools are bad, just that too much of their techniques have evolved from police techniques.

I like that IDPA does the baby carryscenerio. I've observed how hard that is for many shooters that are very good otherwise.

I think that Sul is a good example of how we shouldn't be training.


Consider taking my comments for what they are - an advocacy of reliance on the shooting hand alone for the majority of gun handling. They are not intended to serve as scathing criticism of all shooting instructors, just framing the problem in that light considering how people embrace things like Sul.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Consider taking my comments ...are not intended to serve as scathing criticism of all shooting instructors, just framing the problem in that light considering how people embrace things like Sul.

It's hard to know what purpose they serve, since I hardly see anyone "embracing" SUL. Some of us have found it to be useful for certain purposes and have added it into our "toolbox." That seems to me to be a long way from "embracing" it.

I don't think anyone here has advocated adopting SUL and abandoning other techniques when those techniques better serve a particular purpose. And we have other techniques to use when we need to open doors and deal with obstacles.

 

[AK103K]

Dont most all the techniques blend and adapt as things change and evolve? Does anyone use "just one" for everything? I really dont see how you would.

While SUL is more or less my "base", a simple shift of the wrists and its now a compressed ready, a little more extension, its neutral, etc, etc. Things change as things change, and Im all for change as its needed. Having, or declaring there is only one way to do things, seems awful limiting and inflexible to me.

SUL to me just seems to be the best/safest way to deal with or handle the gun, when the gun is out, but doesnt need to be immediately pointed at someone, especially if others are around and movement is involved. I just dont see how the other methods can or would allow the same level of safety, being it retention or sweeping.

Hey, Im not saying any one of them is "best", just you never know what you dont know, until you give things a good try, and prove them to be good or bad for your needs. The only way I know to do that, is actually do it. Something might be the dumbest looking thing youve ever seen, until you try it, and find out looks sure can be deceiving.

 

[RX-79G]

Geez, Frank. I'm just making a point about not putting too much emphasis on dual hand techniques. I'm critical of Weaver for similar reasons.

I don't think making a point about how we should be thinking about how civilians should apply techniques is so without merit that we can't discuss that reasonably.

It isn't like you've disagreed with what I do or suggest, just that I'm posing the problem in a way that offends you.

 

[Sharkbite]

Just use the correct tool for the job at hand. Trying to do EVERYTHING with a hammer makes the job harder

If you need to go to SUL as you turn past a loved one. Go into it and then get back to the ready you like as a standard.

Both hands on the gun.... Good. Need to open a door, well i guess you better know some techniques for that

Not everything is a nail. Use other tools!!!

 

[Theohazard]

It takes no "training" to see and read the facts.

Is no one allowed to have an opinion (which is what the OP requested) unless they "took a class"?

The OP asked the question
I merely answered it, and showed facts to support what I stated.

Forget taking a class; you've never even tried position Sul, let alone practiced it. All you've showed here is the importance of not forming strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about.

Just use the correct tool for the job at hand. Trying to do EVERYTHING with a hammer makes the job harder

If you need to go to SUL as you turn past a loved one. Go into it and then get back to the ready you like as a standard.

Both hands on the gun.... Good. Need to open a door, well i guess you better know some techniques for that

Not everything is a nail. Use other tools!!!

Exactly! Some of the people here arguing against Sul have no experience with it and they seem to think we're advocating that it replace all ready positions and be your only position, when that's not the case at all.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It isn't like you've disagreed with what I do or suggest, just that I'm posing the problem in a way that offends you.

Well I am commenting on your statements as I read them. Others can decide if I'm expressing being offended.

I do disagree with your contention that SUL is an example of how we shouldn't be training. To the contrary, I think it's a useful tool we should train with and use when appropriate. And of course not use when it's not.

 

[Snyper]

But if you hold the gun low enough to be out of your fields of vision, you would then be pointing the gun at or near your head. Plus, it's a very awkward hand position.

LOL
No you wouldn't and it's no more "awkward" than anything else

Like I said before, you can fabricate any scenario you like to fit your argument.

Rather than factually refute what I said, you want to change the topic to the amount of formal "training" someone has.

You don't have to give my opinions any "weight" at all, but if the facts are wrong you should be able to disprove them rather than pull the "I know more than you because I paid someone to tell me what to think" argument.

Others have based their opinions on actual training with the position and use of the position.

That doesn't change the facts I stated at all.
They just keep repeating the rhetoric

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Rather than factually refute what I said, you want to change the topic to the amount of formal "training" someone has...

To what particular facts do you refer?

One relevant fact is that folks have trained with and successfully use SUL for something on the order of twenty years.

 

[Snyper]

Forget taking a class; you've never even tried position Sul, let alone practiced it. All you've showed here is the importance of not forming strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about.

LOL Don't assume you know what I've done
Unless of course you've taken a class on it
Otherwise YOU are stating an opinion on something you know nothing about

 

[Snyper]

To what particular facts do you refer?

Do I really need to list them again?
They haven't changed

One relevant fact is that folks have trained with and successfully use SUL for something on the order of twenty years.

And for decades before that they did things differently

That has nothing to do with anything at all about the technique itself

 

[zincwarrior]

Too much thinking.
Compressed when moving (to be clear pistol in tight to chest pointed directly outward) and out pointing if not moving.

1. I can just piston out and shoot at the same time. Plus its less heavy for a more extended period of time.
2. If you're in front of me, you're the BG. I want to sweep you.
3. this is likely a home situation. If I am moving, then its less of a chance someone can grab it. If not moving I am facing the threat and likely braced.

If its outdoors its likely one handed and there is not ready position. I've shot you or you you've shot me.

 

[Theohazard]

LOL Don't assume you know what I've done
Unless of course you've taken a class on it
Otherwise YOU are stating an opinion on something you know nothing about

I wouldn't call it an assumption, I'd call it an educated guess: It's fairly clear from what you've written here that you've never practiced the correct Sul position, otherwise you wouldn't be writing stuff like this:

but I stll see a gun gripped by just three fingers, pointed at your own toes, or someone elses if in a crowd

teaches you to point a gun, held with just 3 fingers, "between your own feet", and you have to be extremely careful if you move at all

Like I said, it's not a good idea to form a strong opinion on a subject you know very little about.

 

[RX-79G]

If you know better about Sul, why not say what you know about it?

The criticisms leveled are that you don't have as much grip on the gun because of the thumb maneuver, and that the muzzle control comes from the off hand propping the gun, which you lose if that hand gets pulled away.

I would be happy to hear your thoughts on those criticisms.

 

[Theohazard]

I've already said what I know about it: It provides a safe way to keep the gun as close to your body as possible, while still allowing a very fast presentation. The way you're holding the gun provides a lot more than just 3 fingers of support. And even if the support hand is removed, you're still gripping the gun with your strong hand in what amounts to a modified high-thumb grip; it's hardly unsupported.

For many of us who have learned it and practiced it, position Sul is useful in some situations. You may not like it, and that's fine; but criticizing it as useless when you haven't even practiced it is a little ridiculous.

 

[zombietactics]

More sense in seven minutes than you could hope for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftC6MXFGxCg

FWIW, none of the position discussed in this video are what I use. I just like the way Paul lays the topic out and discusses it in context.

Regarding Sul (which I also don't use), I much prefer Mike Seeklander's modified version, as it keeps both hands on the gun in a strong retention position.

 

[Snyper]

I wouldn't call it an assumption, I'd call it an educated guess: It's fairly clear from what you've written here that you've never practiced the correct Sul position, otherwise you wouldn't be writing stuff like this:

Which of those things I stated aren't factual?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Forget taking a class; you've never even tried position Sul, let alone practiced it. All you've showed here is the importance of not forming strong opinions on subjects you know nothing about.

LOL Don't assume you know what I've done...

He wasn't assuming what you've done or haven't done. You stated in post 16 that you've never trained with SUL:

...You're right though, I haven't had "training" with Sul...

I wouldn't call it an assumption, I'd call it an educated guess: It's fairly clear from what you've written here that you've never practiced the correct Sul position, otherwise you wouldn't be writing stuff like this:

Which of those things I stated aren't factual?

It's not a question of "factual." It's a question of the inferences you have drawn.

You have observed certain attributes of the position; and, without having trained with the position, you have reached and stated your conclusions that the position is unsuitable for its intended purposes and you have called the position a (post 51):

...the latest "tacticool" gimmick that says "Look at me"...

On the other hand, what is factual is that for close to 20 years many people have been training with and using the position finding it to be useful in real life in the real world. It has been tried and tested and found by many to be worthwhile.

That is a fact. And an inference which may be drawn from that fact is that people who have tried, tested, trained with and used the position have concluded that it serves a purpose -- in contrast to your conclusion, without having trained with the position, that it does not.