W.E. Fairbairn and Rex Applegate

[agtman]

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

That's a valid point, I agree. A lotta folks who CCW for personal protection don't have near enough repetitive "trigger-time" to make it count on the street, i.e., in a real-world SD incident.

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

That depends on which MA we're about, ... and more importantly, what you're training for.

If it's strictly fancy-prancy forms & kata dojo stuff, then it falls somewhere between irrelevant and useless on the street.

If you're talking instead about MMA-type training, that's different. MMA training imparts a "street-reality" to self-defense that's virtually identical to training for a real-world gunfight.

 

[Brit]

When I was a Board member of IALEFI, I met Jim Cirillo, he was running a scenario shoot he had set up.

I was passing through, just to look "You want to run through it?" Sure said I.

When we were patching the targets, he said: "Why did you shoot the mechanic who had a big wrench?"

I said he had it raised? He was still laughing when I left! Brits!

 

[Archie]

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 The discussion was whether Fairbairn and Sykes have been superseded by modern techniques.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.

"...superseded by modern techniques..." only in the sense of making quick hits against a paper target without danger - other than looking bad - and in an artificial environment with both hands free and time to prepare.

Willingness to kill has nothing at all to do with whether that technique can deliver fast and accurate fire...

Mindset to win a lethal encounter is only applicable to real life. Actually, it does not apply to shooting games as you say. So as long as one is shooting for score on a controlled range, it may be ignored. However, it is the key missing element that cost the FBI and the agents involved several lives and some serious injuries in Miami, Florida on 11 April 1986.

...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?

What is being said is Fairbairn and Sykes developed a training program to teach their officers to physically stop criminals with lethal intent, not win shooting prizes on an artificial scenario. In fact, the question is mentioned and answered in Shooting to Live.

If so, you have not made much of an argument to explain why this works in a fight but not a competition?

You are possibly correct, Bart. The statements made so far have assumed the readers are familiar with both concepts. To one who is wholly immersed in the 'game' aspect and interested only in making high scores and mistaking 'gaming' for reality, the difference is probably invisible.

 

[Jeff22]

In Shanghai, the Chinese members of the SMP carried Colt .380 ACP Pistols (Colt 1908), the European constables carried Colt M1911s in .45ACP and the Sikh members of the police carried Webly Revolvers in .455 caliber.

The issue sights on the M1908 and the M1911 were tiny and not of much use in many applications, hence the focus on point shooting techniques. In the book "Shooting to Live with the One Hand Gun" William Fairbairn opines that the best sights for combat use with the pistol would be a silver bead front sight and a shallow "V" rear sight -- similar to today's express sights. (I have sights like that on an M870 shotgun and also on a Kahr K9)

The accuracy standard required in training was quite low in comparison to modern practices.

“The qualification we require before the recruit’s course can be successfully passed is 50% of hits anywhere on the man-sized targets employed.” – page 40

Fairbairn suggested the use of aimed fire at distances greater than 4 yards and the grip depicted is quite similar to what is commonly used today.

“in spite of having said that the great majority of shooting affrays take place within a distance of 4 yards, the need does arise occasionally for a long shot.” – page 45

Fairbairn did state “they must not look at their sights because they will never have time to do so” –page 37. Keep in mind this was with the little tiny sights the M1908 and M1911had back in the 20s and 30s. Modern practice (since the early 70s) has been to employ high visibility sights on handguns used in defensive application in most circumstances.

Fairbairn also advocated engaging a target with a "burst" of two or three rounds -- another technique still used 80+ years later.

Given the limitations of the equipment available and the limitations on time and ammunition he had available to train 6,000+ members of the Shanghai Municipal Police, the program he developed was quite innovative and is influential in some ways into the present day.

(page citations from "Shooting to Live with the One-Hand Gun" by William Ewart Fairbairn and Eric Anthony Sykes, reprint by Paladin Press in 1987)

 

[Jeff22]

"Mindset" is an important aspect of self defense. So is situational awareness and the technical skill to actually deliver accurate hits on target under the circumstances your are presented with.

You can have all the "will to win" that you want but that in and of itself is not enough. You still need technical skills, whether you are talking about empty hand skills, using a knife or impact weapon or a firearm.

I would suspect that the unarmed techniques that Fairbairn and Sykes taught would still be relevant today. When it comes to defensive use of the handgun, Fairbairn in his book recommended sighted fire at distances past about 4 yards, which is not any different than techniques taught today. The only difference is that he had a specific one handed technique he taught for close range, along with several other positions (like the quarter him and half hip) positions that are also somewhat similar to what is commonly employed today.

Hocking College in Ohio at one time taught their police academy students a variation of Fairbairn's technique (this was probably 20 years ago or so?) I haven't seen any articles about it in the police magazines for years so I don't know if they still do that.

Somehow this discussion veered off into the often repeated argument about whether or not USPSA or IDPA shooting is relevant to self defense, and if the techniques commonly used in those matches are relevant to self defense. Of course they are, in some respects. Neither of those disciplines is tactically "correct" but both are good ways to practice high performance shooting against multiple targets at varied distance. As a form of marksmanship skill development, they are entirely relevant to self defense provided that you use the gun and holster combination that you actually carry on duty or for self defense with your CCW permit or on your property. (I shoot a Glock 22 or 35 in production class in USPSA (or stock service pistol class in IDPA) and a Glock 19 in the concealed carry pistol class in IDPA (and now a Glock 43 in the back up gun class in IDPA)(I'm a cop and almost everybody I train carries a Glock)

What a guy does shooting a USPSA open gun out of a funny holster using a race gun with an optic on it is NOT relevant to you if your defense gun is a S&W Shield carried in a Bianchi Black Widow holster. (I use that as an example because that's one I'm familiar with). Also, 32 round field courses involving lots of running around may not be relevant to you, but an 8 or 12 or 16 round stage involving movement from position-of-cover to position-of-cover and engaging multiple targets at moderate distances would be.

A lot of people who criticize competitive shooting have never tried it. Sometimes it's because there is no club close enough, sometimes because their work or life schedule doesn't work with when the matches are, sometimes it's because people are often reluctant to try the unknown, and often it's because people don't want to test themselves and risk finding out that they aren't as good as they think they are. Sometimes it's because the courses of fire run at a local club emphasize "run and gun" stages that may be less relevant to the skill set you are trying to develop. That doesn't mean competition is "bad" but it might mean that the courses of fire they run won't be useful to help you achieve the abilities that you want to learn.

Same thing with training. You do NOT have to spend thousands of dollars flying out to Gunsite in Arizona or Thunder Ranch in Washington State (although that would be really neat). In most places of the country you can find a competent instructor who does two day(or three) classes for $300 to $500 and 600 to a thousand rounds of ammo. Most people aren't in a position to go to multiple classes in a year (although that would be really neat) but you can probably afford to go to one every other year or every third year or whatever.

Pick a class that is appropriate to the primary skill set that you are trying to develop. The armed private citizen would benefit from one kind of class, a police officer on patrol might benefit from a similar or slightly different class, and then a SWAT Team member or soldier would find a class with a different focus to be more applicable to their circumstance.

(I have always thought that there is room in the market for one day classes taught by competent instructors at a reasonable cost that focus on development of specific skills. National or regional traveling instructors usually have two or three or five day classes -- regional or local instructors might do shorter classes. A one day class would be easier for most people to afford and squeeze into their schedule)

There are so many people who would enjoy shooting in a match and enjoy going to formal training if they'd only try it, but it's really hard to get people to take the first step. And, you have to make a proper choice of both based on your current abilities and what skills you're trying to develop.

 

[Pond James Pond]

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.

I fail to see why those two activities by the same person would have to be mutually exclusive.

If you mean don't bring an IPSC mindset to a gun-fight, then sure, but if you're saying don't bring on the IPSC muscle memory-reinforced skills including but not limited to instinctive gun-handling, rapid mag changes, shooting on the move, accuracy, rapid draw and sighting in on target I'd have to question your rationale.

Don't like shooting competitively? Fine.

Assume anyone who does, doesn't have the mindset and skills needed to survive a gun-fight?
Well,... let's say it's not an assumption I'd make about anyone.

 

[Lohman446]

You can have all the "will to win" that you want but that in and of itself is not enough. You still need technical skills, whether you are talking about empty hand skills, using a knife or impact weapon or a firearm.

It's not the will to win that matters-everyone has that. It's the will to prepare to win that matters.

The original statement reminded me of this

 

[GarandTd]

I think the more techniques you learn and and can employ in different scenarios the better. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some or all of those techniques to improve your chances in both defensive situations and competitive ones. One must remember, though, that competition is structured and organized with rules and parameters set forth by officials. Self defense....not so much. How your mind and body reacts to those differences will ultimately decide the outcome.

I've never competitively shot before, but I think I'd like it. I've never killed or had to defend and I pray that I never have to. These are my opinions based off of life, mindset, experiences, etc...

 

[SIGSHR]

IMHO we are always looking for THE technique, the "one size fits all/sure fire/guaranteed to work all the time/impossible to counteract", etc. Like the caliber wars, an endless debate.
Fun, but, don't expect to find THE answer.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

F+S did not have body armor, radios to call back-up, or 20 round magazines.
Now when police or military make entry they do try, or at least train, to do it with at least a half dozen guys, flashbangs, and full auto weapons.

Hard to beat an FS III. One has been my security blanket for a long time and probably always will be.

 

[MT 73]

What is a FS 111?

 

[ShootistPRS]

I believe he is talking about a Baretta 92 FS, but I could be wrong.

 

[the Black Spot]

IMHO we are always looking for THE technique, the "one size fits all/sure fire/guaranteed to work all the time/impossible to counteract", etc. Like the caliber wars, an endless debate.
Fun, but, don't expect to find THE answer.

We could train like Delta Force, that might do it. If we could get in lol.

I train the best i can.

 

[ken grant]

F/S/A system

I think the FSA handgun system is one of the best for the average person who wants to defend themselves and have no desire to be highly trained or desire to practice every day , week or etc.

It is a system of BASIC self defense that once learned is retained very well and is good for anyone that is not a gun person and will not practice much.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Point shooting...

You don't hear much about it these days.

I'm a nobody as far as gunfights go, never been in one.... Hope I never am.

But I came to enjoy point shooting at a very early age, its Chuck Conners fault (The Rifleman)...I first began point shooting at the ripe old age of about 8, with a Red Rider BB gun.

After a few thousand BB's a soda can at 25 feet or so didn't stand a chance against me.

A little later, at around age 12 I guess...I happened on an article in a magazine about Bob Munden... And using a 22 revolver and holster that belonged to my Granddad I eventually got pretty good at point shooting that too (not Bob Munden good by any stretch).

I still do a lot of point shooting at the range... Because its fun and sometimes I just like to show off, lol.

All that is to say... It can be learned... Its just muscle memory and some hand eye coordination.

Combat accuracy at less than 50 feet isn't really that hard. Hell, after having played around with it for going on 40 years now, head shots aren't that hard, on paper at least.

I'm not advocating not using the sights... Just saying that knowing how to get by without them in a pinch may not be a bad idea either.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

What is a FS 111?

https://www.google.com/search?q=FS+...647ZAhWr4IMKHaBkAToQ_AUICygC&biw=1336&bih=593
Though I warn, if a USMC captain ever asks what the best fighting knife known to man is, just reply KA-BAR. You'd be safer spitting on the flag than claiming otherwise. Definitely don't say the KA-BAR is actually a utility knife.

To expand on my previous post, I am constantly amazed the way CC people look for training from police, military, and game players.

For instance shooting isosceles. Great if you have body armor, guys to cover you if hit, med-evac on call, etc. Without all those things if you get hit center mass you are probably dead. A through and through from the side might just be quicker and a small utility pole can provide reasonable cover from pistol rounds when sideways. Well, at this point my belly would probably stick out. There are a lot of real world cover positions that shooting from two handed is awkward. When you are alone, sometimes a bark and a flash coming out of the barrel fast can be worth more than a slightly slower hit.

I've walked some of the same streets as them in Hong Kong. There are areas in Hong Kong where at 2AM I felt as unsafe as anywhere in the world. Turn the corner and walk down a dark alley to go from a seemingly safe touristy night market to shadowy place where the rule of law clearly doesn't exist, or is at least the law is written by criminal elements. Really not much different feeling than Tepito market, but much quicker transition from a seemingly safe area. It is a very interesting city.
In the time they were in Hong Kong there were very limited number of firearms. Even so, there are few in history who have published manuals with the experience they gained through their careers.

 

[Jeff22]

Fairbarin and Sykes were in Shanghai . . .

A fascinating period in history to be sure

 

[johnwilliamson062]

In '49 the they moved the city, they just forgot to change the name. Well at least the part of Shanghai Fairbairn was dealing with.
Details... Hong Kong and Chinese organized crime was still impressive. Much different than what I have seen in West.

 

[Brit]

Being in a fight, with or without weapons, in order to stand any chance of coming out alive, not necessary unhurt, but surviving, one must have the ability to immediately react!

Not after thinking carefully through a scenario. Basically how to flow into attack mode. Fear can freeze you to the spot.

In my experience, he who hits first, wins, if the hit or hits are delivered with instant aggression. If you are facing more than one aggressor, you cannot engage, as in a sports combat situation, the first person you strike, that person has to be out of the fight. If the means of attack you have is a pistol, it must have sufficient rounds to allow you to fire in burst mode! The movie fight were one shot finishes the confrontation, is not normally the way it goes.

So a 15 round magazine in your carry weapon is the least you need to carry, to cover most eventualities! Your ability to conceal such a pistol, in your normal dress of the day, is a prerequisite. Being retired helps!

Living in a part of a City that running gunfights are not common also help's.

 

[Blue Duck]

I believe that Sikes and Fairbairn quite often only had an hour or two to train a recruit and they wanted a system that also helped to maintain safety. Condition 3 eliminated the reliance of safeties and the tiny safeties on the guns in question were not that friendly for fast and foolproof operation, and the sights were not very good and it was quite often dark, when a gunfight occurred.

They pinned the safeties in the fire condition, so that they were taken out of the equation. For the conditions, weapons, and time in history, I believe their system may have been about the best they could do, and the results speak for themselves.

I have shot competition off and on for 30 yrs or more. I believe it does help, but because it's still gamesmanship, I don't know, I know I get tired of some of it. I kind of liked IDPA, but all of the running and gunning, and procedural errors, and trying to memorize the course etc. The matches are getting more gamy all of the time. I kind of miss the old IPSC matches of the earily 1980's when it was more just stand on your hind legs and shoot quick, before they got all tricked out with guns and holsters that are more at home in a Star Wars movie then in a real life gunfight.

And they also they have reduced the power factor, to pop gun status, this I don't like. Back in the 80's we had to shoot real full power heavy loads to make major and I believe it should still be that way.

But all in all, if you are out there shooting and handling your guns, etc. You are improving your skills, and that's a plus, just don't confuse it with real self defense combat shooting.