W.E. Fairbairn and Rex Applegate

J

Jeff22

New member
That whole period in history is quite fascinating. Fairbairn's techniques for employing the handgun have been superseded by more modern techniques, but the history of the Shanghai Municipal Police and how and why those techniques were developed is very interesting. William Fairbairn instructed British Commandoes and later on US Army MP Officer Rex Applegate, who in turn was involved in training agents of the Office of Strategic Services.

Some recommended reading:

"Shooting to Live with the one hand gun" by W.E. Fairbairn & E.A. Sykes

"The World's First SWAT Team: W.E. Fairbairn and the Shanghai Municipal Police Reserve Unit" by Leroy Thompson

"The Legend of W.E. Fairbairn: The Shanghai Years" by Peter Robins

"Quick or Dead" by William L. Cassidy (classic history of the development of modern shooting techniques)

"Kill or Get Killed" by Rex Applegate

"The Close Combat Files of Col. Rex Applegate" by Rex Applegate and Chuck Melson

"Bullseyes don't shoot back: The complete textbook of point shooting for close quarters combat" by Rex Applegate and Michael Janich

(Many of these books can be found for cheap on amazon.com)
 
S

SIGSHR

New member
I wouldn't say Fairbairn's and Applegate's techniques have been "succeeded"
by "more modern techniques", rather other people have developed techniques that work for them-and others. IMHO shooting techniques are like martial arts-you have to find what works for you.
 
H

hdwhit

New member
Fairbairn & Sykes developed their fighting techniques by actually fighting people - sometimes to the death. Their techniques worked and it is doubtful you would go seriously wrong studying them, practicing them and emulating them.
 
T

T. O'Heir

New member
"..."succeeded" by "more modern techniques"..." Nearly all of which are based on playing the assorted shooting games not reality like Fairbairn and Sykes. Fairbairn and Sykes' techniques are proven in real live combat. Both in war and police work.
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
T. O'Heir said:
"..."succeeded" by "more modern techniques"..." Nearly all of which are based on playing the assorted shooting games not reality like Fairbairn and Sykes.
Click to expand...

So in a gun game where speed and accuracy are the entire component of your score, the Fairbairn and Sykes method is so completely non-competitive that not a single person uses it; but if you sprinkle magic combat fairy dust in the air, it suddenly becomes better?
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
Well, those folks were not playing games, they were into killing people. No warnings, no fair play, no scoring. And the horrible truth is that if you carry a gun, you are not playing a game, either. The fact is that if you do carry a gun you must be willing to kill. Not frighten, not play mind games, not intimidate. Kill. If you cannot accept that, and all that it implies, leave the gun at home and save your fancy shooting for the range.

Jim
 
B

bamaranger

New member
How?

How did we get from a look back at the streets of Shanghai, to slamming folks who shoot competitively? Some other comments:

Almost all modern combat handgun shooting instruction, be it LE or military current training, has evolved from what was or had been done over the past 50 or so years, with competitive action type shooting. No academy or agency/organization, at least that I am aware of, teaches Fairbairn/Sykes (FS) techniques of singlehanded point shooting. (course I could be wrong).

So does that make the "modern technique" the only way, and F/S (point shooting) totally obsolete? Of course not. In the unpredictable circumstances of a real shoot, where things might happen at bad breath distances, in terribble light, etc, you won't have time to establish your stance, grip, and consider your front sight, and achieve a surprise break. Your behind the curve, and you need to shoot, quickly. An instinctive shot, or some type of "speed rock" may well be the only answer. Similarly, if you are involved in a shoot involving longer distances, let's just use over 7 yds, point shooting probably won't solve your problem. F/S, and modern technique are tools, to be applied as necessary, to win.

If we shoot someone, they may die. If we carry, we need to be completely resolved with that issue, that our shooting may kill someone. But, we shoot to STOP. To stop an immediate violent threat to ourselves, and.... possibly others. "Shooting to kill" as a civilian or an LEO, is a legal disaster waiting to happen. We shoot to stop, death could be a consequence we need to mentally and legally prepare for, but not our purpose.

Jim Cirrillo (?) and the New York Stakeout Squad, were in a number of gunfights. My understanding is that when considering potential members for the unit, an officer who shot a bit competitively and was a proven good shot, were one of the elements they took into positive consideration. The stress of competition certainly will not equal a real shoot. But it provides a mechanism to create some circumstances that will be present in a real shoot. Certainly shootng fast and accurately, under the presurre of the clock, your peers and varying courses of fire, is viable practice.
 
M

mete

New member
Jim Cirillo was in 17 shootouts IIRC. He won them all. He always shot as if was the real thing in IPSC matches !
At least one of the matches he was laughed at by the "players ". I wonder how they would do in a real shootout ?
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
James K said:
Well, those folks were not playing games, they were into killing people. No warnings, no fair play, no scoring. And the horrible truth is that if you carry a gun, you are not playing a game, either. The fact is that if you do carry a gun you must be willing to kill. Not frighten, not play mind games, not intimidate. Kill. If you cannot accept that, and all that it implies, leave the gun at home and save your fancy shooting for the range
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything in this thread? The discussion was whether Fairbairn and Sykes have been superseded by modern techniques. They have. Willingness to kill has nothing at all to do with whether that technique can deliver fast and accurate fire - unless you are making the argument that this technique somehow confers an extra mental edge that only appears in a fight. Is that what you were trying to say? If so, you have not made much of an argument to explain why this works in a fight but not a competition?
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
mete said:
Jim Cirillo was in 17 shootouts IIRC. He won them all.
Click to expand...

Why did he win them? Was it because his shooting technique was so superior? Or was his shooting adequate but he was a master of tactics? Or maybe he had a particularly adept mindset? There are a lot of things that go into a gunfight besides weapon handling - many of them much more important.

If I am strong enough to lift the end of a quarter-ton pickup with one hand, I bet I can win a lot of fights without having much in the way of a good fighting technique; but people who emulate me because I won a lot of fights are going to be in trouble.

As a shooting technique, no one has ever dominated any of the shooting sports based on fast and accurate gunfire using Fairbairn and Sykes technique. So if this technique has some modern utility that has not been superseded - what is it? Does it pair well with a dominant set of tactics? Does it imbue a winning mindset? Why is this an intangible that no practioner can describe?
 
S

SIGSHR

New member
Jeff Cooper emphasized the "Combat Mindset" and Charlie Askins won all of his gunfights because he was a crack shot and, as Massad Ayoob wrote of him, a "stone cold killer." Also I wonder how much of our "modern" techniques are not new discoveries but people being allowed to label it and claim credit. I recall reading an article years ago about the Pershing Expedition of 1916 where the author related accounts of NCOs using a two handed shooting stance and scoring hits at long ranges.
 
A

agtman

Moderator
Well, those folks were not playing games, they were into killing people. No warnings, no fair play, no scoring. And the horrible truth is that if you carry a gun, you are not playing a game, either. The fact is that if you do carry a gun you must be willing to kill. Not frighten, not play mind games, not intimidate. Kill. If you cannot accept that, and all that it implies, leave the gun at home and save your fancy shooting for the range.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Well said.

There are gun-gamers, and then there are gun-fighters.

The latter have an overwhelming advantage ... It's called proper mind-set.
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
"What does that have to do with anything in this thread? The discussion was whether Fairbairn and Sykes have been superseded by modern techniques. They have. Willingness to kill has nothing at all to do with whether that technique can deliver fast and accurate fire ..."

Stick to playing games on the range and leave the gun at home; otherwise explain what carrying a real gun in the real world has to do with except the very real possibility of killing someone.

Jim
 
S

sigxder

New member
Better read up on Jim Cirillo's "nose point" technique. It is a two handed version of point shooting when things are close.
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
JamesK said:
Stick to playing games on the range and leave the gun at home; otherwise explain what carrying a real gun in the real world has to do with except the very real possibility of killing someone.
Click to expand...

Jim, I'm not understanding your point. My point is if a shooting technique works in a gunfight, it should work in a game. But it doesn't work in a game.
 
N

Nanuk

New member
Why did he win them? Was it because his shooting technique was so superior? Or was his shooting adequate but he was a master of tactics? Or maybe he had a particularly adept mindset? There are a lot of things that go into a gunfight besides weapon handling - many of them much more important.
Click to expand...

Jim was a great guy. Most of his shootings were ambushes, nothing wrong with that just saying that things work differently when the BG gets popped in the mellon from the get go.
 
N

Nanuk

New member
Stick to playing games on the range and leave the gun at home; otherwise explain what carrying a real gun in the real world has to do with except the very real possibility of killing someone.
Click to expand...

It is not either or. You are the sum of all your knowledge and abilities. Are there training scars from competition? Sure there are. There are also training scars from faulty repetitions. I have been carrying a gun professionally since 1979 and have been shooting competitively in some fashion or other since about 1975. I believe that marksmanship skills enhance ones ability. I was training in the early 1980's on basically what S/F taught. I can switch back and forth between aimed fire and threat focused fire as needed, I think that is a necessary skill.

Competition shooting definitely improves your shooting ability, if for no other reason than trigger time, reloading and weapon handling reps.

In the Martial Arts one gets better by practicing and sparring, combat shooting is no different.
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
This being the 21st century, the original "Kill or Get Killed" training film used by the Army is online and very instructive: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BeSpwAA_0DU

Some of the things you can see that carry over even today are you need a good master grip and good trigger manipulation before how you index the pistol comes into play. It also gives some good instruction on how to index a pistol without sights, which is still occasionally handy in the era of large tritium sights and powerful handheld lights.

Now compare the instructor in that video to this state level IDPA competition video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1OEmqkamo8

Has that method been superseded?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top