General Categories > Information Arsenal

Concepts for Winning the Gunfight

<< < (2/2)

Mudinyeri:

--- Quote from: DenmanShooter on May 14, 2014, 07:34:03 AM ---Number 7 will get you a long stay in the grey bar hotel.

Shoot them to the ground, yes, then stop.  Unless they are still a threat.

None of this shoot them in the face while on the ground business unless it is SHTF WROL or you are actually in combat.



--- End quote ---

I think the key phrase in #7, relative to your point, is "if needed".  In other words, if you have shot them to the ground and they continue to be a threat ... shoot them some more.

JTH:
Some comments about the article by Suarez:


--- Quote from: Suarez ---Nothing makes you remember stuff than teaching it. And it gets even worse when you are writing up an international affiliate program that will reach thousands. As I was reviewing lesson plans I kept think..."of course", and "everybody knows that". But perhaps not. So here goes. In no particular order.
--- End quote ---

I'm going to attempt to keep my personal opinion regarding Suarez out of this.  (Versus my professional opinion regarding the techniques he is talking about.)  Apologies if I don't manage it.


--- Quote ---
1). Caliber really is irrelevant in today's world. Don't get bogged down with it. I carry a 9mm and feel just fine about my manhood. Unless your focus is killing animals (in which case I would ask why you have a pistol and not a rifle), 9mm will do just fine if loaded with anti-personnel ammunition.
--- End quote ---

Oddly enough, some VERY knowledgeable trainers are fine with pocket pistols in .22, too. That being said, I agree with the "preferably 9mm or more" attitude.  Current research (using modern SD ammo) shows that no matter how many people say "you telling me there's no difference between being shot with a 9mm compared to a .357magnum?!" there is no effective difference (other than for intermediate barriers) between 9mm, .40, and .45 in terms of stopping attackers.
 

--- Quote ---2). Carry a reload...at least one. Accessible with the non-trigger hand.
--- End quote ---

While I agree this is a good idea, I disagree that it is necessary.  We see from research that the vast majority of SD situations require only one (or less) shots. 

I'm sure the "two is one and one is none!" crowd will disagree, but we aren't talking extended firefights nor explosive detonators. If I have a reliable firearm (and in my case 17+1 rounds in it) given my lifestyle, that's good. Sure, I may be in a store tomorrow that is attacked by an entire biker gang intent on killing everyone---but I'm not going to plan my EDC based on that.

In winter I do tend to carry an extra mag---heavy clothing, easy to do, so why not?----but in summer I mostly don't see the need.
 

--- Quote ---[3). Appendix Carry is the fastest draw possible, because it is the shortest distance possible to target. It is also suitable for movement in any direction, and accessible when knocked on your back. It is also easiest to hide when concealment is paramount. Some will argue but I will happily show anyone what I have just typed is true.
--- End quote ---

While I agree about the speed and suitability for movement, plus the accessibility, his comment about concealment is nonsense.  Concealment is strongly based on body type, and while AIWB is certainly the best concealment FOR ME, I have seen other people for whom that was simply not true.
 

--- Quote ---4). If Appendix carry is good for a pistol, the other side of the buckle is perfect for the reload.
--- End quote ---

I'm thinking that rather depends on if you look ridiculous or not with two things making your belt stick out in the front.  I personally can get away with AIWB, but if I put a matching mag on the other side, it looks--unfortunate, at best.

And since I haven't found any timed reload speed difference between carrying a mag at 1 o'clock and 2:45 (I'm left-handed) I'm going to have to disagree with his contention of "perfect".
 

--- Quote ---5). Force on force, and gunfight experience shows us that even when moving, the path to success is bringing the pistol up to shoulder height, seeing meat and metal, and then pressing the trigger until the bad guy falls. Below line of sight shooting is very impressive on the range in the same way that a jumping side kick is impressive...but you don't see jumping side kicks in the cage, or below eye level shooting in force on force.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, well, we don't see eye gouges in the cage either, but it isn't because they aren't effective---it is because"the cage" isn't any sort of reliable simulation of reality.

I'm pretty sure that Southnarc would disagree with the "below eye level shooting" comment above--as would anyone else who has taught CQ shooting from position #2.

I'm all for preferably shooting with the gun raised to the sight line. That being said, there are times when having the gun extended and raised simply isn't going to work. (And anyone who has been through my CQT class can demonstrate several obvious reasons why.)
 

--- Quote ---6). The more fit you are, the harder it is to kill you. Conversely...the easier it is for you to kill others.
--- End quote ---

Um. Well, yes, as long as you ignore the fact that guns actually make this untrue.

Sure, if you are fit you can run away faster and further. If you have muscle your body is better protected from trauma, and better able to respond in defense. And sure, your ability to attack increases the more fit you are.

None of that makes as much difference as you'd think when a gun enters the situation--on your side, or the other side.

Effectively, this statement becomes more truthful the farther away from "tool-using" you get.    I note that if "easy to kill others" is your goal, I'd invest in some ANFO and a detonator---or better yet, instead seek therapy.

 
--- Quote ---7). Shoot them to the ground is a term I coined in 1998. It describes how you need to shoot in a gunfight. Shoot them to the ground...and if needed...shoot them again...preferably in the face.
--- End quote ---

I'm pretty sure I saw that phrase prior to 1998. But whatever. And "how you need to shoot them in a gunfight" is "keep shooting until the threat is stopped" which may or may not be the ground. Sure, his version is a great pithy soundbite that'll really attract a lot of "I am a SHEEPDOG" types, but that doesn't make it accurate.  And, you know, putting it that way is also more likely to get the shooter put in prison, for moving from self-defense to attempted murder.
 

--- Quote ---8 ). Clever gun drills are boring to me. Go do a set of weighted dips with your bodyweight equivalent hanging off a chain until you fail, then show me your clever gun drill shortcut. Bottom line is that if you cannot perform it at your worst, you may as well be playing with yourself. Picture your worst day...tired, beat up, hungry, sick, hung over, fresh from a fight with the wife and a dressing down by your boss, with sore hands and too many layers of clothing...THERE is your gunfight. Perform there.
--- End quote ---

Since he never defines "clever gun drills" (though he certainly uses plenty of gun drills in his DvDs and his classes) it is hard to say anything about this, other than I'm not sure he understands how effective practice works. Saying things like "if you cannot perform it at your worst, you might as well be playing with yourself" is downright ridiculous, since the point of practice is to make yourself better--so obviously you AREN'T going to be only practicing things you can do at your worst.

Again---seems to be pithy tough-guy attitude without real substance.
 

--- Quote ---9). This is about killing, and killing is simple. So many non-killers teaching killing these days. Ask a killer what works best. He will say the simple way works best. Why do non-killers want to complicate this?? Draw the gun, point it, and shoot them to the ground. If you see enough to guarantee the hits, keep at it. If not, seek more. The red dots really make things simple.
--- End quote ---

Wow. Not only is his premise completely wrong (it isn't about killing, and if it is for you, prison is in your future), but his argument about asking a killer is stupid, too

After all, if you ask a killer what works best, they'll say overwhelming force from surprise. Doesn't really resemble self-defense much, does it?

"So many non-killers teaching killing these days."  What a load of nonsense.
 

--- Quote ---10). Gunhandling. Fixing problems and preventing problems. Preventing them involves not being ghetto in your cleaning habits and ammo choices. Fixing means getting the thing back into the fight when some son of a b**** is trying to blow your a** away. Do you want clever or simple right now? The simple way is to tap rack the pistol if it stops, and then to reload it if the first solution did not succeed. A secret - I really don't give a rats a** what the GSG9 guy that taught you said. He was scared as f*** in his first gunfight just like everyone else...and he did it the simple way, regardless of what he is telling you now.
--- End quote ---

I'm all for simple and straightforward, and good weapon/ammo habits seem obvious if you are planning on trusting your life to them.

I'll note that his two fixes don't solve a double-feed, but as usual, he really isn't writing about reality, he is pontificating to set an attitude.
 
One problem I have with what he is saying overall is one that I often have with various TACTICAL! trainers, many of which come from military or law enforcement backgrounds----which is, in a nutshell, that military and LEO goals have almost nothing to do with citizen self-defense goals, and tactics chosen under LEO/MIL circumstances often either 1) don't enhance your personal safety or 2) are excellent for putting yourself in prison.  And yet, those MIL/LEO trainers keep teaching the same tactics.
 
Military folks NEED to win gunfights to achieve their objectives. LEOs NEED to win gunfights to stop criminals from escaping.
 
Citizens NEED to keep themselves safe and unharmed.
 
In a military engagement, continuing to shoot until the enemy is dead and you have the objective cleared is the smartest choice. In a law enforcement engagement, killing a criminal who is attempting to escape to commit more crimes is a reasonable act.
 
For citizens in self-defense situations, actions such as the above will often buy yourself some prison time.
 
One of my favorite comments about IDPA:  "IDPA will never be realistic in terms of real-world self-defense situations until a stage is made where the high score is given to the guy who runs away screaming for help."
 
Is that a useful military or law enforcement tactic?  Not so much. Should it be a primary tactic considered by citizens in potential self-defense situations?  Well, I don't know about you but I'm thinking that my chances of surviving a gunfight go up sharply if I'm not there anymore.

As he often does, I think that in the above article, Suarez has combined a lot of really obvious truths with his own particular attitude, and phrased everything in non-true absolutes.  Not to mention playing to the "we are real killers" crowd with his talk of killing, which unfortunately bears little resemblance to citizen self-defense, who are the majority of his student base.

Not a fan. (Even though his early work with shooting, force-on-force, and CQT was excellent for its time, and really made a difference to our knowledge.)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page