Combat Focus Shooting AAR

[T2C]

Amen. Which cult is worse, Pincus or Yeager?

This comment made me laugh out loud.

[ptmccain]

I'd take Pincus any day over Chuck "I'm going to start shooting people" Yeager.

He is a real laughing stock among competent professional trainers.

[WickedWillis]

I'd take Pincus any day over Chuck "I'm going to start shooting people" Yeager.

He is a real laughing stock among competent professional trainers.

Yeah I remember you calling out Yeager on your Youtube. It was adorable. Following the Pincus comments, it seemed like OP you were endorsing the class quite a bit until the end of your statement did I read that wrong?

[ptmccain]

Sorry, you are confused.

[ryr8828]

I'd take Pincus any day over Chuck "I'm going to start shooting people" Yeager.

He is a real laughing stock among competent professional trainers.

Chuck Yeager- famous USAF test pilot.

James Yeager- CEO of Tactical Response

Jagerbomb- something kids mix up to get drunk and cause their heart to explode all at the same time.

They may all sound the same but there is quite a difference between them.

[ptmccain]

Chuck Yeager- famous USAF test pilot.

James Yeager- CEO of Tactical Response

Jagerbomb- something kids mix up to get drunk and cause their heart to explode all at the same time.

They may all sound the same but there is quite a difference between them.

Good one, I had just been watching the movie "The Right Stuff" the day before....

[jondoe297]

I'd take Pincus any day over Chuck "I'm going to start shooting people" Yeager.

He is a real laughing stock among competent professional trainers.

Same here, but I'm wondering which cult is worse. I guess I would say Yeager's is. His nutswingers try to act as macho and belligerent as he does. I read his "get off the x" forum every now and then, and it's comedic gold.

[Caduceus]

Chuck Yeager- famous USAF test pilot.

James Yeager- CEO of Tactical Response

Jagerbomb- something kids mix up to get drunk and cause their heart to explode all at the same time.

They may all sound the same but there is quite a difference between them.

I wondered about that too but figured there could be more than one guy with his name.

One of my childhood heroes. Great autobiography

[26 Inf]

I'm late to this party, so forgive me ...

I've only been to 2 pistol classes, so take this at face value. I'm also not in a gun-carrying profession.

I did a class at Acadami, where they taught the "bring the gun back, then drive out" between transitions. Not so much for retention, but rather to avoid "over shooting" the next target. With your hands out, you look then swing your arms/torso and may overshoot, then have to stop, reverse motion, and settle the sights on the next target. By bringing the hands in, your head/torso move, and you present the weapon already on the target. I suppose it depends on how fast you can move and get on target, but it seems to make sense in that regard.

Regarding "bullets backwards." I've been taught that at a rifle course ("beer can method."), for rifle mags only. To be honest, I like indexing pistol and rifle mags forward, but have tried it just to keep my mind open. Still not entirely sold on it (if it works, why change it), but it does seem to change the motion of my support hand......

......Forgot to add, one additional reason for the "in and out" transition is to allow you to turn your body towards the threat, establishing a more solid base than if you were to rotate torso only (ie, feet pointed still towards target one, not target 2).

Obviously, if targets are close, not a big deal, but if you're swinging a few dozen feet in a different direction it gets less stable. Also acknowledging that you may have to shoot in a less-than-perfect stance.

If I understand correctly, in essence he is saying that your presentation from the compressed ready allows you to drive the gun directly to the target - this is indeed true - but it wastes time.

I fail to see the logic - shoot, look to the next target, move the muzzle to where your eye is looking, refocus on the front sight, shoot repeat as needed - works with everything you want to shoot - pistol, rifle, shotgun.

You don't swing through targets if you move your eyes ahead of the gun - it's kind of God's gift, your eye, your brain and your arms all work together and stop the muzzle right where you are looking. In my experience, you will swing through the target if you have your eyes anchored to the front sight.

[hogarth]

If I understand correctly, in essence he is saying that your presentation from the compressed ready allows you to drive the gun directly to the target - this is indeed true - but it wastes time.

I fail to see the logic - shoot, look to the next target, move the muzzle to where your eye is looking, refocus on the front sight, shoot repeat as needed - works with everything you want to shoot - pistol, rifle, shotgun.

You don't swing through targets if you move your eyes ahead of the gun - it's kind of God's gift, your eye, your brain and your arms all work together and stop the muzzle right where you are looking. In my experience, you will swing through the target if you have your eyes anchored to the front sight.

^^^^This!

We did this in Steve Fisher's (Sentinel Concepts) Critical Handgun Employment class, practicing it both ways. Sure enough, if you followed your sights swinging from target to target, we always moved the gun past the target. Drizzle half an inch and move your eyes, THEN the gun, and you end up right on target every time.