Pistol tac reload - which do you use and why

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by CoryCop25

I have always taught and practiced the older RWR. BUT I am now implementing "bumping" which is keeping your full magazines where you would grab for them first. For example, I carry my mag pouches horizontally on my belt so if I need to perform an emergency reload then I would drop my empty magazine from my pistol and strip a full one from the top of the pouch. With bumping, I would preform a tac reload by stripping the full magazine from the BOTTOM of my mag pouch and placing the partially used mag in the bottom pouch. This technique now requires the use of the NEW tac load which requires me to strip the mag from the pouch before removing the partially full mag from the pistol. . The only problems with the new tac load are that the double stack magazines are wide and can be fumbled in the hands during stressful situations and that the full magazines are hare to seat in the pistol with the slide in battery.

What you describe is what I do too (and I think there was a long debate about this on LF not too long ago). Whether carbine or handgun, my pouch furthest away from my emergency mag is used for an admin load.

[CoryCop25]

And that's exactly why I started doing this. We are starting to implement the carbine in my department and I want the training to be the same.

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by CoryCop25

I have always taught and practiced the older RWR. BUT I am now implementing "bumping" which is keeping your full magazines where you would grab for them first. For example, I carry my mag pouches horizontally on my belt so if I need to perform an emergency reload then I would drop my empty magazine from my pistol and strip a full one from the top of the pouch. With bumping, I would preform a tac reload by stripping the full magazine from the BOTTOM of my mag pouch and placing the partially used mag in the bottom pouch. This technique now requires the use of the NEW tac load which requires me to strip the mag from the pouch before removing the partially full mag from the pistol. . The only problems with the new tac load are that the double stack magazines are wide and can be fumbled in the hands during stressful situations and that the full magazines are hare to seat in the pistol with the slide in battery.

I understand the line of thinking, but rather I still encourage the use of dump pouches or pockets for partial magazines changed out for a Tac re-load.

The reasoning being that you have no idea how long the "lull" will last and i'd rather have the gun back up in the fight ASAP to continue assessing the situation.

Once it is deemed that the shooting is over for more then just a few seconds, "bumping" the magazines can take place when you have the known time to fiddle around with such things, and of course AFTER you have made sure that your current position is the best place to be, or moved to a more suitable location from which to assess and fight if need be.

It's easy to get in the mindset from static range training that it's ok to start moving around with your magazines and gear after a short string of fire rather then pay attention to your surroundings and keep up your situational awareness. It seems to me that people are training themselves to shoot, do a short scan, and then start fucking with their gear as if bad guys don't sometimes take 10 seconds to run from 2 streets down to see what happened to their homie/s.

It is my personal belief that the training should go something more like "identify threat, react accordingly based on the level of threat presented (i.e. verbal warning followed by shoot or just shoot, both performed while moving off axis), scan, change position to a more suitable location if necessary, tac re-load, scan again, and if it is genuinely figured that the situation is in fact over, then start worrying about bumping magazines.

The reason for moving to cover is put before the tac re-load is that I think it's more important to not get shot then it is to shoot the bad guy. Just FYI.

Yes it's important to get your gear in order for possible prolonged gunfights. But the fact is that violent situations tend to attract attention and that maintaining readiness to mitigate any follow on threats is more important in the short term then preparing for the long term fight that may or may not come.

I do understand the reasoning behind the new way of doing a tac re-load, in that people really just want to find a way that they think is "economy of motion", but in my mind, the logic of the gunfight means keeping that window of unavaliblity on your firearm as short as possible, and that you keep yourself immediate situational awareness for the shooting that might take place NOW, instead of worrying about the shooting that might take place later.

And I will reiterate that fumbling magazines (single or double stack) is a training and muscle memory training issue, not hand size so much. As I said, if my wife and I, or even my 12 year old kid can be taught to not bobble a tac re-load with enough practice, then anybody can.

I must say, this is a great thread guys....

[rob_s]

The problem is that pockets aren't accessible for a lot of people wearing duty belts, and dump pouches aren't something that regular folks are liable to be walking around with and many cops won't have room for them (or be allowed to wear them) on their duty belt.

Let's look at a worst-case.

You fire "some rounds".
You determine that a tac-load is necessary.
You use your support hand to remove the rear-most magazine from your belt.
You bring that hand to the gun and swap magazines.
You return your support hand to your belt to stow the magazine in the only empty pouch.
As you are fumbling to insert the magazine a threat presents itself.

Now, do you continue to fumble or do you drop the partial on the deck and start shooting? I know what I would do, or at least what I would want to do.

I also find it interesting that all in one post you mention fumbling around for the empty magazine pouch but then say that swapping magazines at the gun is so easy a 12-year-old could do it.

[ToddG]

Originally Posted by rob_s

Now, do you continue to fumble or do you drop the partial on the deck and start shooting? I know what I would do, or at least what I would want to do.

We set this "problem" up at a match once. Shooters were told they could perform a tac load (whatever kind they wanted) at a certain "lull" and then in the middle of the process, a target popped up.

Almost every single person completed the reload rather than engaging the target immediately. In many cases, the stress of the appearing target caused shooters to fumble the reload, which they nonetheless continued to work on rather than firing on the threat target. Sort of puts a big question mark on the whole "a tac reload has the gun downloaded for the shortest amount of time" argument...

[rob_s]

Did the target pop back down? Was it IDPA where you can't drop the loaded magazine and IIRC can't shoot one-handed with the magazine in hand?

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by rob_s

The problem is that pockets aren't accessible for a lot of people wearing duty belts, and dump pouches aren't something that regular folks are liable to be walking around with and many cops won't have room for them (or be allowed to wear them) on their duty belt.

Let's look at a worst-case.

You fire "some rounds".
You determine that a tac-load is necessary.
You use your support hand to remove the rear-most magazine from your belt.
You bring that hand to the gun and swap magazines.
You return your support hand to your belt to stow the magazine in the only empty pouch.
As you are fumbling to insert the magazine a threat presents itself.

Now, do you continue to fumble or do you drop the partial on the deck and start shooting? I know what I would do, or at least what I would want to do.

I also find it interesting that all in one post you mention fumbling around for the empty magazine pouch but then say that swapping magazines at the gun is so easy a 12-year-old could do it.

Engaging the threat comes first and foremost. To hell with your partial magazine. And if it's that immediate of a threat, shoot the hell out of the threat strong hand unsupported rather then dropping the magazine and trying to get the proper two handed shooting platform.

And if you go back and read my posts, I don't mention "fumbling" around with magazines, I say "fiddling" with, and only in regards to "bumping" magazines (relocating full magazines to the slots that you reach for first in a gunfight).

What I am refereing to when I say "fiddling" or "fucking around with", i'm speaking of the time in which your attention is placed on re-proportioning your gear rather then on your immediate surroundings. Not about "fumbling" with magazines because you lack the critical dexterity or large man paws that some think are necessary to perform an traditional tac re-load.

[ToddG]

Originally Posted by rob_s

Did the target pop back down? Was it IDPA where you can't drop the loaded magazine and IIRC can't shoot one-handed with the magazine in hand?

No, it was not an IDPA match. Competitors were free to drop the mag if they chose to, or engage the target one-handed, or do anything else. Almost all of them opted for "juggle magazines and gun for a few seconds" instead.

The target did not disappear once it popped up. It stayed there "threatening" the shooter until he neutralized it.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by GrumpyM4

And if you go back and read my posts, I don't mention "fumbling" around with magazines, I say "fiddling" with, and only in regards to "bumping" magazines (relocating full magazines to the slots that you reach for first in a gunfight).

What I am refereing to when I say "fiddling" or "fucking around with", i'm speaking of the time in which your attention is placed on re-proportioning your gear rather then on your immediate surroundings. Not about "fumbling" with magazines because you lack the critical dexterity or large man paws that some think are necessary to perform an traditional tac re-load.

I get you. I think the problem is the term bumping, which if that means fiddling around moving magazines about on the belt I wouldn't do either.

What I do is just use the furthest magazine for admin loads and the closest for emergency loads. I wouldn't want to get into fiddling around with magazines from pouch to pouch either.

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by ToddG

We set this "problem" up at a match once. Shooters were told they could perform a tac load (whatever kind they wanted) at a certain "lull" and then in the middle of the process, a target popped up.

Almost every single person completed the reload rather than engaging the target immediately. In many cases, the stress of the appearing target caused shooters to fumble the reload, which they nonetheless continued to work on rather than firing on the threat target. Sort of puts a big question mark on the whole "a tac reload has the gun downloaded for the shortest amount of time" argument...

This in no way shape or form negates the "keep the downtime of the weapon as short as possible" argument.

This only points out that there is a training deficiency...in current terms a "training scar", and that there is always a possible weak spot in any technique which rarely happens but needs to still be trained for, but, is not reason enough to throw the entire technique out.

And how would YOU personally handle this? Would you, if the threat presented itself prior to reinserting a new magazine, fire your single round avalible at the target, or would you re-load the weapon portion of the technique (disregarding the retention of the partial magazine in the traditional tac re-load, or) prior to pulling the trigger on the target?

If you continue with the actual re-loading portion of the technique, you have more rounds avalible in case the threat isn't ended with a single shot, on the other hand, you might only have time for that single shot before the threat does something that ends you.

In that case, you fire your single shot (unless you're unlucky enough to have a firearm with a magazine disconnect) and now you have a weapon that needs to be loaded and now re-charged and the possiblity of a threat that is still mobile and you might not have time to get the weapon back in the fight.

Once again, these are all exceptions to the rule that while they present a unique conundrum and a difficult training evolution, they do not negate the utility of the technique.

In the end, it all boils down to training, learned habits, and muscle memory that over-rides the adrenalin and hyper emotion of the moment.

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by rob_s

I get you. I think the problem is the term bumping, which if that means fiddling around moving magazines about on the belt I wouldn't do either.

What I do is just use the furthest magazine for admin loads and the closest for emergency loads. I wouldn't want to get into fiddling around with magazines from pouch to pouch either.

Cool beans bro....

And you are absolutly correct about admin or tac re-loading from the far pouches and reserving the close magazines for "combat" reloads.

[CoryCop25]

Originally Posted by rob_s

What I do is just use the furthest magazine for admin loads and the closest for emergency loads. I wouldn't want to get into fiddling around with magazines from pouch to pouch either.

Exactly!

The issue I see with dump pouches is that you will have to go back through them and pick out what you want to use. A simple "use front for emergency and rear for admin" will make it easy.

When training my guys with tac loads, I use a whistle for the command to fire. This is one of the only times I use a whistle. I watch the shooter and I will blow the whistle to fire when they are in different stages of reloading. If they fumble to reload instead of fire that round they have in the chamber, I ask them why the chose to reload and try to adjust their thinking.

[GrumpyM4]

So lets say you've got yourself into a gunfight. You've got one mag in the gun and two in the mag pouch.

The gunfight starts and you find that elusive "lull". You follow the new tac re-load by dropping the partial mag into your support hand and then move to go put it in the mag pouch, keeping in mind that as a tac re-load, you're using the mag from the rear.

This means that to place the partial mag in the pouch, you have to keep it in your hand while unsnapping the mag pouch (for you LE folks or those who prefer secured mag pouches) and pulling the full mag out. Still finding yourself in a postion where you have two mags in the same hand, even for just a moment.

How is this any easier or fumble proof then the traditional tac re-load where you pull your full mag from the pouch first, do a quick switch, and then place the partial back in an already clear spot in the mag pouch?

Lets say you're in a situation where you're all geared up and have 4 spare pistol mags avalible, you've burned through a full magazine, already combat reloaded from your "front" magazine location, and find that elusive "lull" in the gunfight. You now have to perform a tac re-load, and "bump" your mags to the prefered spots.

Point being, i'd rather have the time when i've got two mags in one hand be when it's right in front of my face where I can actually see what i'm doing and visually problem solve while maintaining peripherial vision and situational awareness rather then "fumble" with mags at waist or chest rig level and have my head looking down and away from the potential threat area should I have an issue and I need to visually problem solve.

Now onto dump pouches. This also pertains to the whole "fiddling" with magazines in a location that may require you to look down should an issue arise. I find it far easier to gross motor skill a partial mag into a big bag then try and orient the bullets in the partial mag forward (or whichever direction you personally prefer) and insert into an empty mag pouch, all of which is taking up precious time and effort when you might have another threat pop up that you NEED to pay attention to.

It's been established that it's better to bump ones mags after they are really damn sure that they have the time, and frankly, if you have that kind of time, it's not going to be that much extra effort to pull your paritals from a dump pouch to replace them then it is to sit there and pull each mag from the mag pouch, look at the remaining ammo, and place the more full ones forward or even (in the very rare situation that you will actually have the time) download the partials and creat completely full mags.

Nothing personal, but I think some people get into the midset of "gear managment" so much that they lose focus on what all of this training and mindset is for, and that is to win a gunfight and stay alive. Winning gunfights and staying alive means keeping your situational awareness about you and prioritizing your gear managment appropriatly.

I agree that gear managment is an important thing, especially in the long run, but I do not believe that it should be done at the expense of the short term possible immediate threat. I believe that getting your gunfighting tools (you and your guns) in the highest state of readiness in the shortest amount of time is what is paramount, and that gear managment comes a distant second.

Like I said, not making judgement calls on anybody, just giving my point of view.

p.s. I apologize to everyone who has to put up with my atrocious spelling.

[RWK]

To avoid confusion -- the concept of going to the rearmost magazine during a tactical reload is nothing new. That's how it's (supposed to have) been taught for over 20 years.

Originally Posted by ToddG

We set this "problem" up at a match once. Shooters were told they could perform a tac load (whatever kind they wanted) at a certain "lull" and then in the middle of the process, a target popped up.

Almost every single person completed the reload rather than engaging the target immediately. In many cases, the stress of the appearing target caused shooters to fumble the reload, which they nonetheless continued to work on rather than firing on the threat target.

How close was the target? Were the shooters behind or on their way to cover? Was the target actually a threat? By pre-programming the scenario ("you perform your tactical reload *here*") did some of them set themselves up for failure by getting out of "fighting mode" and into "gamer mode" (if they were ever there to begin with...)?

Originally Posted by ToddG

Sort of puts a big question mark on the whole "a tac reload has the gun downloaded for the shortest amount of time" argument...

It puts a big question mark only on the ability of that particular group of people's ability to fight using that technique. Was there any benchmarking done with regards to proficiency in tactical reloading (irregardless of specific technique) prior to this most scientific of studies?

Originally Posted by GrumpyM4

Now onto dump pouches...

Nice idea, if you have the luxury of (to paraphrase another member here) "walking around with a basketball hoop sticking out of your ass". Many folks work in "normal people attire" and don't have the luxury of dump pouches or trousers/shirts with 15 available pockets.

[rob_s]

Originally Posted by GrumpyM4

So lets say you've got yourself into a gunfight. You've got one mag in the gun and two in the mag pouch.

The gunfight starts and you find that elusive "lull". You follow the new tac re-load by dropping the partial mag into your support hand and then move to go put it in the mag pouch, keeping in mind that as a tac re-load, you're using the mag from the rear.

This means that to place the partial mag in the pouch, you have to keep it in your hand while unsnapping the mag pouch (for you LE folks or those who prefer secured mag pouches) and pulling the full mag out. Still finding yourself in a postion where you have two mags in the same hand, even for just a moment.

How is this any easier or fumble proof then the traditional tac re-load where you pull your full mag from the pouch first, do a quick switch, and then place the partial back in an already clear spot in the mag pouch?

If you think that this is what anyone is advocating then I think you're mis-reading the thread.

Let's first go back to terminology again. Reload with retention (RWR) is removing and stowing the partial magazine from the gun first, then retrieving the spare, then inserting the spare in the gun. Tactical-reload (TL) is retrieving the spare, removing the partial, inserting the spare into the gun, stowing the partial.

The scenario you outline above is designed to fail and you've made a lot of worst-case predictions that would be discovered with 30 minutes of live-fire training before ever having the fight.

What I suggest is doing a TL and at the end sticking the partial back in the rear-most pouch where you got the full magazine.

Lets say you're in a situation where you're all geared up and have 4 spare pistol mags avalible, you've burned through a full magazine, already combat reloaded from your "front" magazine location, and find that elusive "lull" in the gunfight. You now have to perform a tac re-load, and "bump" your mags to the prefered spots.

I also haven't seen anyone advocate moving magazines around on their gear, and in fact at least two of us have already clarified that this is not what we're advocating.


I'm not going to quote the rest of your post as it seems as though your entire objection is based on your mis-reading of the discussion.

Typically those that advocate the RWR do not advocate stowing in the pouch because of exactly the issues that you bring up, and instead advocate a pocket or a dump pouch. That happens to be how I run the carbine, for a lot of reasons, but not the pistol.

[ToddG]

Originally Posted by GrumpyM4

This only points out that there is a training deficiency...in current terms a "training scar", and that there is always a possible weak spot in any technique which rarely happens but needs to still be trained for, but, is not reason enough to throw the entire technique out.

I'd argue otherwise. Yes, it could be "trained out" of them. But to what end? At what cost? Given that we still haven't seen examples of when a so-called "tac reload" (of any type) has made a difference in a gunfight, I'm leery of dedicating enough limited training resources to overcome that deficiency. Now instead of learning a TL, I also have to learn "what to do when your TL is interrupted" and make that another reflexive conditioned response.

And how would YOU personally handle this?

As I've stated already, I don't tac load under stress. I have 16 rounds in my pistol, another 15 on my belt, and usually a second gun on my body. I firmly believe that anyone who honestly believes a partially spent magazine is going to mean the difference between life & death would be far better off simply carrying another spare mag.

In that case, you fire your single shot (unless you're unlucky enough to have a firearm with a magazine disconnect) and now you have a weapon that needs to be loaded and now re-charged and the possiblity of a threat that is still mobile and you might not have time to get the weapon back in the fight.

I'd say that's a very good example of why a "RWR" is superior to the "tac reload." Given that the RWR is demonstrably faster and assuming that we either (a) don't believe or (b) don't advocate that someone would/should fire the lone round the the pistol, then might as well do the reload in the manner that gets the gun topped off the fastest, yes?

Once again, these are all exceptions to the rule that while they present a unique conundrum and a difficult training evolution, they do not negate the utility of the technique.

Again, I would have to disagree with that concept. If I'm going to overcome a "difficult training evolution," it needs to be justified. Is working through this technique -- making it something that a shooter can choose, manage, and perform under stress -- worth the time that someone could instead be working on things like marksmanship, speed, etc.?

In the end, it all boils down to training, learned habits, and muscle memory that over-rides the adrenalin and hyper emotion of the moment.

But that's just the point. In the example I gave, you had a bunch of people who trained to do various TL/RWR techniques rather heavily and when they were put under stress, they finished what their "muscle memory" had been trained to do even if it might not have been the smartest thing in the world.

Originally Posted by GrumpyM4

So lets say you've got yourself into a gunfight. You've got one mag in the gun and two in the mag pouch.

So even if I'm carrying 7rd magazines and I don't top off the mag in the gun, I'm walking around with 21 rounds of ammunition. So, far more ammunition than is fired by almost any individual in any handgun battle in domestic personal defense or LE. Just to keep things in perspective when we start talking about the need to conserve/save ammo...

The gunfight starts and you find that elusive "lull".

Not trying to be argumentative, but this is the major fallacy of the whole concept. What is a lull? How do you know you're in a lull? More importantly, how do you know the lull will last another 3-4 seconds while you perform your TL/RWR?

This means that to place the partial mag in the pouch, you have to keep it in your hand while unsnapping the mag pouch (for you LE folks or those who prefer secured mag pouches) and pulling the full mag out. Still finding yourself in a postion where you have two mags in the same hand, even for just a moment.

At least in my experience, folks who teach/advocate the RWR do not teach shooters to put the magazine in a mag pouch. The partial/stowed magazine goes in a pocket, waistband, etc. Basically, you take the mag out of your gun, put it somewhere, then perform a speed/IPSC reload. If your "lull" continues, you can always juggle your ammo on your belt. I'd argue that if you don't feel like you've got time to manage your magazines that way, you shouldn't be doing a TL/RWR to begin with.

Nothing personal, but I think some people get into the midset of "gear managment" so much that they lose focus on what all of this training and mindset is for, and that is to win a gunfight and stay alive. Winning gunfights and staying alive means keeping your situational awareness about you and prioritizing your gear managment appropriatly.

Couldn't agree more! That's why I think the whole TL/RWR thing is silly.

Originally Posted by RWK

How close was the target? Were the shooters behind or on their way to cover? Was the target actually a threat? By pre-programming the scenario ("you perform your tactical reload *here*") did some of them set themselves up for failure by getting out of "fighting mode" and into "gamer mode" (if they were ever there to begin with...)?

Target was very close. It was years ago, but as I recall it was within 3yd.

Shooters were behind partial cover.

While I understand the "pre-program" comment, I'm not sure of its severity. What the test proved, at least to me, is that once someone went into "do a tac reload" mode, they completed that task regardless of outside stimuli presenting an immediate threat. Watching shooters actually putting magazines back in their pouches after loading the gun instead of shooting the threat left a distinct impression on me.

It puts a big question mark only on the ability of that particular group of people's ability to fight using that technique. Was there any benchmarking done with regards to proficiency in tactical reloading (irregardless of specific technique) prior to this most scientific of studies?

I never claimed it was a scientific study. The shooters were all serious IDPA competitors, many of them also mil/LEO. At the time, TL/RWR "on the clock" was a common part of many IDPA events and thus I'd argue these guys had practiced the techniques far more than most folks.

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by RWK

To avoid confusion -- the concept of going to Nice idea, if you have the luxury of (to paraphrase another member here) "walking around with a basketball hoop sticking out of your ass". Many folks work in "normal people attire" and don't have the luxury of dump pouches or trousers/shirts with 15 available pockets.

That's funny!

Although I will point out that I mentioned using whatever was avalible including pockets, etc, if dump pouches are not avalible.

My real point is that my belief is that partials should not be returned to the mag pouch in a tac re-load if there is any easier option that is quicker.

Originally Posted by rob_s

If you think that this is what anyone is advocating then I think you're mis-reading the thread.

Let's first go back to terminology again. Reload with retention (RWR) is removing and stowing the partial magazine from the gun first, then retrieving the spare, then inserting the spare in the gun. Tactical-reload (TL) is retrieving the spare, removing the partial, inserting the spare into the gun, stowing the partial.

I understand that the partial is retained, I supposed i've been confused as to how it's been retained and by who it's been advocated.

The scenario you outline above is designed to fail and you've made a lot of worst-case predictions that would be discovered with 30 minutes of live-fire training before ever having the fight.

Of course it was designed to fail. I was only following the lead of the gaming scenario that ToddG told us about. I was basically trying to point out that the weakness of any technique can be found and use it as an attempt to invalidate the entire technique.

Any technique can be picked apart and a scenario made up for it that will make it fail. There's no such thing as an absolutly perfect solution to any issue in a gunfight (or anything else for that matter).

The fact is that everything we do and learn is the best stop-gap measure we can come up with to adjust for an imperfect situation. Everything has a failure point. Finding that failure point as a reason to invalidate a technique does nothing but point out that there is room for improvement, not that the entire technique should be thrown out.

What I suggest is doing a TL and at the end sticking the partial back in the rear-most pouch where you got the full magazine.

Ah...got it....unfortunatly there has been some serious mis-communication and misunderstanding in this thread the longer it goes on and with the more people who join in. It's been difficult to figure out who is advocating what. We've all talked about the mulitple styles, but just talking about them doesn't necessarily mean that they are endorsing a given style.

This closely matches what I've been advocating with the exception that I still prefer to drop the partial in a dump pouch (when avalible) or a pocket, inside the shirt, etc. I really prefer not to fiddle around trying to place a magazine back in a pouch when I think that there are more important issues to deal with first.

In my opinion, replacing a mag back into a pouch can take more concentration then is necessary during that phase of a gunfight, especially when you have to make sure the magazine is indexed properly to your re-loading style, etc. A quick dump in a pocket to be retrieved later during a known break in the action or at the end of the action seems more preferable to me.

Point being that although we agree (I think) with prefering the "traditional" tac re-load over the new version (RWR), i've been confused by some of the tangents that this conversation has taken.

For instanceCorycop25 said:

Originally Posted by CoryCop25

I have always taught and practiced the older RWR. BUT I am now implementing "bumping" which is keeping your full magazines where you would grab for them first. For example, I carry my mag pouches horizontally on my belt so if I need to perform an emergency reload then I would drop my empty magazine from my pistol and strip a full one from the top of the pouch. With bumping, I would preform a tac reload by stripping the full magazine from the BOTTOM of my mag pouch and placing the partially used mag in the bottom pouch. This technique now requires the use of the NEW tac load which requires me to strip the mag from the pouch before removing the partially full mag from the pistol. . The only problems with the new tac load are that the double stack magazines are wide and can be fumbled in the hands during stressful situations and that the full magazines are hare to seat in the pistol with the slide in battery.

Which IS advocating moving mags around in ones gear when the opportunity presents itself, but agrees with the ideal of tac re-loading from the "rear/bottom/whatever".

You then replied:

Originally Posted by rob_s

What you describe is what I do too (and I think there was a long debate about this on LF not too long ago). Whether carbine or handgun, my pouch furthest away from my emergency mag is used for an admin load.

Which seems like you agree with "bumping" mags. While bumping mags is not a bad thing at the appropriate time, more often then not, this technique is being taught in training classes to take place nearly immediately after the tac re-load is completed. Which is why I commented:

Originally Posted by GrumpyM4

I understand the line of thinking, but rather I still encourage the use of dump pouches or pockets for partial magazines changed out for a Tac re-load.

The reasoning being that you have no idea how long the "lull" will last and i'd rather have the gun back up in the fight ASAP to continue assessing the situation.

Once it is deemed that the shooting is over for more then just a few seconds, "bumping" the magazines can take place when you have the known time to fiddle around with such things, and of course AFTER you have made sure that your current position is the best place to be, or moved to a more suitable location from which to assess and fight if need be.

....in an attempt to clarify at which stage of the gunfight that "bumping" should take place.

I also haven't seen anyone advocate moving magazines around on their gear, and in fact at least two of us have already clarified that this is not what we're advocating.

But people have advocated this, as noted by the quotes above. "Bumping" IS moving magazines around on gear. I think that the only point of contention is at which point during the gunfight this is supposed to take place.

I will concede that while I originally interpreted that you did agree with the idea of moving around your magazines because of what was said earlier, you did say this later..

Originally Posted by rob_s

I get you. I think the problem is the term bumping, which if that means fiddling around moving magazines about on the belt I wouldn't do either.

....so I do understand now that you were in fact not advocating such and were only agreeing with part of what he said.

I'm not going to quote the rest of your post as it seems as though your entire objection is based on your mis-reading of the discussion.

I'd like to think of it as confusion rather then mis-reading. Like I said, this whole thing is getting kind of muddled at this point.

Typically those that advocate the RWR do not advocate stowing in the pouch because of exactly the issues that you bring up, and instead advocate a pocket or a dump pouch. That happens to be how I run the carbine, for a lot of reasons, but not the pistol.

This is where I suppose my greatest confusion has arisen from. I have interpreted the conversation to this point to mean that the "new" tac re-load (which you all call RWR which still kind of confuses me) as including placing the partial magazine back in the mag pouch rather then stowing it where-ever avalible.

My apologies for getting this muddled up.

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by ToddG

I'd argue otherwise. Yes, it could be "trained out" of them. But to what end? At what cost? Given that we still haven't seen examples of when a so-called "tac reload" (of any type) has made a difference in a gunfight, I'm leery of dedicating enough limited training resources to overcome that deficiency. Now instead of learning a TL, I also have to learn "what to do when your TL is interrupted" and make that another reflexive conditioned response.

I'd like to think that everything we do is training for the "worst case scenario", and that these sorts of failure points MUST be accounted for in training. If a technique is going to be taught, regardless of which version, it's failure point/s must be identified and mitigated.

Otherwise we get the example you listed where everybody continued with the re-load rather then engaging the threat. That sounds like a REALLY big training deficiency to me as that could cost the shooter his life.

So yes, I would in fact advotacte that extra level of training.

As I've stated already, I don't tac load under stress. I have 16 rounds in my pistol, another 15 on my belt, and usually a second gun on my body. I firmly believe that anyone who honestly believes a partially spent magazine is going to mean the difference between life & death would be far better off simply carrying another spare mag.

I'm a firm believer in the whole "Better safe then sorry" concept.

Although for the Civ/LE world, I can understand where you're comming from with the exception of a few unlikely situations.

I'd say that's a very good example of why a "RWR" is superior to the "tac reload." Given that the RWR is demonstrably faster and assuming that we either (a) don't believe or (b) don't advocate that someone would/should fire the lone round the the pistol, then might as well do the reload in the manner that gets the gun topped off the fastest, yes?

Much is said of the RWR being "faster".....but at which point are we talking about? Is it faster in the overall technique speed, or is it fast in actually getting the gun topped off and ready?

I would hold it to you that the traditional tac re-load actually gets the gun topped off and ready to fight quicker even though the remainder of the technique still needs to be completed, whereas the RWR is slower to actually get the gun back into the fight even though the entire technique is faster for the simple reason that the actual loading of the firearm takes place at the END of the technique rather then at the middle like in the traditional tac re-load.

Again, I would have to disagree with that concept. If I'm going to overcome a "difficult training evolution," it needs to be justified. Is working through this technique -- making it something that a shooter can choose, manage, and perform under stress -- worth the time that someone could instead be working on things like marksmanship, speed, etc.?

Splitting hairs as to what people "should" be learning really doesn't factor into something like this. Tac re-load techniques should only be taught AFTER shooters get the basics down. I don't advocate taking people past their level of performance or understanding.

Especially considering the levels of training that the shooters may be taken to. I would not expect other shooters to engage in advanced techniques with a person who still needs work on their basic marksmanship. The people being trained need to trust that the other shooters are of an acceptable level before moving on to advanced techniques that can be more dangrous if the shooters are not ready for them.

But that's just the point. In the example I gave, you had a bunch of people who trained to do various TL/RWR techniques rather heavily and when they were put under stress, they finished what their "muscle memory" had been trained to do even if it might not have been the smartest thing in the world.

Once again, a training/mindset deficiency, not a technique deficiency. Unless you count the fact that the technique wasn't taught in a manner that advocates the shooter to overcome a threat as a higher priority then completing a technique.

So even if I'm carrying 7rd magazines and I don't top off the mag in the gun, I'm walking around with 21 rounds of ammunition. So, far more ammunition than is fired by almost any individual in any handgun battle in domestic personal defense or LE. Just to keep things in perspective when we start talking about the need to conserve/save ammo...

Understood. This is why I have been leery about trying to combine all aspects of training (Mil vs. Civ/LE) and have tried to keep some concepts seperate.

Mil folks will have much different opportunities and more chance of extended firefights with more "lulls" as well as the presence of fellow soldiers who can over areas of responsibility and fields of fire while a soldier drops behind cover to manage their gun and gear, then the Civ/LE world where things tend to go rather quick and are over just as fast as they started.

I've also tried to adjust for the fact that many in the Civ/LE world keep possible future unrest scenarios in mind (example:hurricane Katrina) and continue to discuss things like dump pouches and full loadouts. It's understood that even these scenarios are highly unlikely to provide a situation where anybody is engaged in any kind of extended gunfight, but however remote, the possibility is still there.

Not trying to be argumentative, but this is the major fallacy of the whole concept. What is a lull? How do you know you're in a lull? More importantly, how do you know the lull will last another 3-4 seconds while you perform your TL/RWR?

Absolutly. This is always a question/concern which is why I advocate getting the gun back into running condition as quick as possible, even if that means you're snap shooting with one hand, at least you have the rounds in the gun to keep going.

At least in my experience, folks who teach/advocate the RWR do not teach shooters to put the magazine in a mag pouch. The partial/stowed magazine goes in a pocket, waistband, etc. Basically, you take the mag out of your gun, put it somewhere, then perform a speed/IPSC reload. If your "lull" continues, you can always juggle your ammo on your belt. I'd argue that if you don't feel like you've got time to manage your magazines that way, you shouldn't be doing a TL/RWR to begin with.

Like I said in my resonse to Rob, this area was a point of confusion for me.

At the same time I have to disagree with the second part. There's a time to get the gun topped off, and there's a seperate time to be "bumping" and fiddling with magazines in the pouches. I would argue that one does not equal the other and that each should be perfomed seperatly.

I.E. perform the tac re-load, perform another scan and re-assess the situation, figure out if you need to relocate to a more advantageous position, and only then, after you've made sure the lull really is a lull, and that you're in the best possible position, do you get to bumping magazines and re-adjusting your gear.

The truth is that gunfights don't necessarily come upon us when we are in the best places or positions, and it is a higher priority to firstly get the gun/s returned to as highest a state of readiness as possible, followed by taking stock of terrain/location/position/etc. after the threat has been removed then it is to fiddle with the gear.

like I said earlier, gear managment comes second to making sure one is ready to continue and win the gunfight.

Couldn't agree more! That's why I think the whole TL/RWR thing is silly.

I smell what you're shoveling....

Once again, I understand, but I disagree on some points, but it's all good though...

[rob_s]

Cory used a term that can be easily misunderstood and he may have used it incorrectly, but nowhere did he say anything about moving magazines around on the belt. I haven't seen anyone in this thread advocate moving magazines around on the belt. It's in what you quoted.

I would preform a tac reload by stripping the full magazine from the BOTTOM of my mag pouch and placing the partially used mag in the bottom pouch.

which is why I said you were mis-reading the whole thread.

[GrumpyM4]

Originally Posted by rob_s

Cory used a term that can be easily misunderstood and he may have used it incorrectly, but nowhere did he say anything about moving magazines around on the belt. I haven't seen anyone in this thread advocate moving magazines around on the belt. It's in what you quoted.

which is why I said you were mis-reading the whole thread.

I concede that I misunderstood that particular part based off of what had been said, but i'd like to think that I havn't misunderstood the entire thread, just a singular part of it.



Edited to add:

After making sure that my definition of the term "bumping" in fact matched the context with which Cory used it, my question is what else does "bumping" magazines mean to you?

I don't believe he misused the term nor do I believe I misinterpreted his use of the word or concept. It appears that the only thing I mixed up was that I attached the step of re-inserting a partial magazine back into the mag pouch along with the RWR tac re-load.

And the plot thickens.....