View Full Version : NEW Samson PRO Video (Shooting Stances)
Samson-Pro
06-12-14, 10:18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q03CuhXiKE
New videos released all the time. We have several on training topics we will be rolling out in the near future!
Since this is typically where technique is discussed... I'll bite. I think it's a little misleading to compare video clips where you're changing multiple technique variables at the same time to suggest a conclusion.
For example, you make a radical change in the shooters interface with the gun, but you also change his body position at the same time.
You could have left his body bladed, his stock long, but changed where/how he gripped the rifle and had the same increase in recoil management.
A forward lean can only oppose recoil until one is pushed back to a neutral or rear leaning posture. By planting the rear foot and shooting off of it (like how a boxer lands bigger hits off of his rear foot) you're effectively putting the recoil into the ground, rather than relying on a % of your body weight being forward of neutral to try to oppose it.
Forward leaning posture isn't "modern". It's been taught for 20+ years, dating back to when the sub-gun was king and the associated recoil was lighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cMO7v6m1cI
A more extended support arm is more "modern", but that can be done regardless of the position of the shooters shoulders, hips, or feet.
All of these guys are running nearly full length stocks (with some A5's all the way out) and bladed postures.
Dave Borrensen:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u7pQIWouFfI/TzaO8u0_r2I/AAAAAAAAADg/tqQonmmV0L0/s400/5asaaaa+Day+Pistol-Carbine+Photos+pdf.jpg
JD Potynsky:
http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww204/synergy303/carbine%20stance/IMG_2021.jpg
http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab25/greygroupcommunity/Northern%20Red/12-03-2011/DSC_0713.jpg
Kyle Defoor:
http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab25/greygroupcommunity/Defoor%20Proformance%20Shooting%2019Nov%202011/DSC_0017.jpg
Frank Proctor:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/va_dinger/dsc_2084.jpg
Kyle Lamb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVGPEgRZwIw
I think you get the point...
Placing your feet in such a way that the only way to control recoil is to stand out of balance, seems like a fundamental error to me. Speed and the ability to move somewhere are critical (regardless of how many directions the range is you're on), and putting yourself out of balance (in your case, forward) seems to go against that principle.
Voodoo_Man
06-19-14, 21:05
sweet vid, thanks for posting.
Depending on when "modern" is counted from, extending the support arm has been done for several decades:
A couple of pics from the seventies:
The norwegian G3 manual:
http://imageshack.com/a/img132/6184/leftarmplacement.png
Som Rhodesian guys:
http://imageshack.com/a/img843/5898/e5rry.jpg
Failure2Stop
06-20-14, 06:59
Depending on when "modern" is counted from, extending the support arm has been done for several decades:
Yup.
It's all been done before.
The cycle of technology/application/training is interesting.
The cycle of technology/application/training is interesting.
It's circus entertainment for me. I can't wait for the mag well grip to be THE TECHNIQUE again! :sarcastic:
My favorite all time, completely retarded technique... (and I do this at the house every so often to amuse myself) is where you hold the gun off your body, out in front of you pointed up... and then shoulder it and bring the muzzle down on target as needed to slay bodies.
Samson-Pro
06-20-14, 10:33
@Arctic1 Thank you for posting the picture of the rhodesian soldiers, I was going to post that one as well. These techniques date way back if memory serves the Rhodesian image is from 1971. When we talked about "modern" it was a relative term. The "advent" of these techniques over the last 5-10 years rather than the "invent". Almost nothing is new or radically different and there are many many instructors with congruent and opposing views on the subject. To address a few points in the first post though I would offer the following:
1. Yes we did change both the shooters grip and stance. Part of the reason for this was to prevent the creation of a 30 minute video that no one would take the time to watch. Better in general for us to bite things off in smaller pieces and do followup videos. It is possible to adopt an acceptable level of recoil management with a variety of stances/grips but in general the bladed stance allows more rotational force to be applied through the hips and also creates energy transfer over the shoulder with a longer moment arm as the stock is farther from the pivot point. We will be doing a video soon on some kinesiology and get a third party opinion on this as well from some non shooters.
1A. There are also some non recoil related advantages to this. Increasing your field of view in the threat area, making more efficient work of multiple targets by allowing the shooting to more easily address multiple targets across the threat area without having to twist into an awkward position or readjust feet, as well as exposing as much body armor surface area to the threat.
2. We certainly would not advocate that students put themselves off balance at any time. distributing the weight more evenly across the platform is actually the objective. With a slight forward body lean the weight is not shifted forward but centered over the feet. Much like an athlete (ie shortstop, volleyball player, tennis player etc.) who may need to move quickly in any direction. As was mentioned, moving quickly and efficiently is very important. Dropping into a deep full auto posture makes that movement more difficult but may be required given certain circumstances. Everyone has probably seen the video of Costa shooting the M60 on full auto off hand. This situation obviously requires adopting a less than optimum position for rapid movement in order to handle the forces applied. However, it is a unique situation with a unique solution. It is important to note that typically do allow the shooter to adjust a foot more rearward i terms of stance to either help with balance when firing larger calibers etc. as long as the shooter can still move in any direction without the use of a "false step" (ie gathering his/her feet before moving) in any direction.
3. Stance is a very important part of the shooting equation. However, it is less important than the ability to control the weapon with upper body alone. I say this because as soon as we get into shooting on the move the upper body and lower body have to become in a sense independent of one another. A deep full auto posture is not easy to maintain while engaging multiple targets on the move. Keeping the core tight and learning to mitigate recoil to the greatest extent possible without relying on a planted foot offers many advantages. Shooters can maintain a stable platform and upper body rigidity even if they are asked to adopt awkward foot positioning (ie Urban prone, rice patty prone, kneeling etc.)
In closing, nothing should be taken out of context, or construed to mean there is always one answer to every problem. We need to consider philosophy of use as well as application. Thank you all for watching, and contributing to the discussion! We love hearing everyone's take on this stuff, it only makes us better! I have been told the day I think I have heard it all is the day I should hang it up LOL.
Samson-Pro
06-20-14, 10:42
It's circus entertainment for me. I can't wait for the mag well grip to be THE TECHNIQUE again! :sarcastic:
My favorite all time, completely retarded technique... (and I do this at the house every so often to amuse myself) is where you hold the gun off your body, out in front of you pointed up... and then shoulder it and bring the muzzle down on target as needed to slay bodies.
Muzzle up or muzzle down is another great discussion. Port arms especially for iron sight shooters offers many advantages. It allows the shooter to keep the FSP in his/her field of view at all times and more quickly track it out away from the body as targets present themselves. Also, many LEO's are operating in environments with concrete/pavement. An ND from a low ready is potentially as dangerous or more dangerous than one from the port arms in those cases. In the case of a 1st floor apartment complex though with civillians potentially in floors above, a muzzle down posture may be more appropriate. Shooters should become familiar with a variety of ready positions and take muzzle aversion seriously. As always, every situation will require different techniques. As long as we know why and how we are applying them we are in good shape! Thanks for commenting!
It is possible to adopt an acceptable level of recoil management with a variety of stances/grips but in general the bladed stance allows more rotational force to be applied through the hips and also creates energy transfer over the shoulder with a longer moment arm as the stock is farther from the pivot point.
I am going to have to disagree with this.
Here is a vid of me shooting a Bill Drill at 7 meters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGP1t-qn6po
Total time 1:62, splits are around 13.2, wth six shots fired in 0.79 seconds.
It shows my stance pretty well, and I blade my body slightly for a couple of reasons:
-It allows me to extend my stock and to place my support hand further forward - these two things contribute more to recoil control than body orientation, in my opinion.
-Easier to start movement
Here is another vid of me shooting a half and half drill, using the same stance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC-7Ew_V7vo
Total time is 2:03 at the 5 meter line, first shot was at 0.69. Splits are at 13.4, for ten shots in 1.34 seconds
For me, using a fighting stance, ie slightly bladed with one foot forward, and shooting stock fully extended with support arm placed forward on the handguard allows me to drive the sights to the center of target easier. On top of that comes not tensing up, ie relaxing. The traditional stance you are demonstrating in the video is not suitable for rapid shot strings, but variants thereof is used successfully for long distance target shooting.
I also do think that if the recoil of the gun is causing your upper body to rotate as the gun moves to the rear, you are having other issues than just recoil management.
I also use the same stance for FA, although that is a technique I never use. Here is a vid of me shooting the half and half using FA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1t1ZSpot-4 (10 round bursts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLaTTJwgKwY (short controlled bursts - increases accuracy)
The gun doesn't move very much, or move me very much either. I am 5'9" and weigh 170lbs, so I don't have enourmous amounts of mass to counter recoil with; I rely on technique.
I think there are other factors that contribute more than just blading or squaring up.
Muzzle up or muzzle down is another great discussion.
Oh.. I'm not anti muzzle up/Port arms.... I'm talking about a particularly insane technique where you're moving around with your carbine out front of you like it's a stinky diaper and you want it far away from you.
Samson-Pro
06-20-14, 13:45
@Markm hahahahahahaa understood
I few of my buddies are ex-police and army that absolutely LOATH this method and they sometimes go out of their way to convince me otherwise despite doing nothing to impose my views onto them.
With that said I do not have any experience in the field as I am just an enthusiast and I do my own research and testing to validate/invalidate what I find online. However, I also don't want my pride to blind me.
Does this method have practical value in the battlefield? Or is this method effective only for the range and for competition? (and possibly home defense) Am I missing something here? I don't plan on dropping what I know works just because my buddies disagree. Especially when they don't provide some form of testable evidence.
For the most part, I will continue to use the "modern isosceles" as I have a pretty decent understanding of how to manipulate it to my advantage.
Failure2Stop
06-20-14, 15:17
I few of my buddies are ex-police and army that absolutely LOATH this method and they sometimes go out of their way to convince me otherwise despite doing nothing to impose my views onto them.
-snip-
I have my own conclusions about this subject, but does anyone have any additional input as to why someone shouldn't use this technique.
What technique(s) are you referring to?
What technique(s) are you referring to?
I believe got my message across wrong and I apologize for any misunderstandings as a result. I will edit it to represent the idea I was trying to get across.
What I was trying to get across is: is this just a method that's effective only for range shooting and competition, or does it's value hold it's weight in the field of battle? I personally think it does and would continue to use this method but I do no have any personal experience in the front lines to be able to back that statement up.
Failure2Stop
06-20-14, 15:51
I'm still not tracking.
What technique do your friends dislike?
What technique are you referring to in your question of its utility in the real world?
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Failure2Stop
06-20-14, 16:03
I'm still not tracking.
What technique do your friends dislike?
What technique are you referring to in your question of its utility in the real world?
Apologies for quoting myself, trying to circumvent the "who, what, huh?" circle that I have set into motion.
If you are talking about the stance/grip as illustrated by JimD and Arctic1: Yes, absolutely.
That being said, there is a pretty significant difference between optimal training and combat reality. Open-area gunfighting is rarely done on your feet, as being a small, hard to find target is a better idea than standing up. Kneeling and barricade work rules the day in that environment.
Once you get into tight confines, pretty much everything needs to be done from an upright, mobile platform. Multiple accurate rapid shots on multiple targets is a necessity for survival. The folks above have proven their abilities in that aspect of combat, and in preparing others to win in similar circumstances.
NCPatrolAR
06-20-14, 17:18
What technique(s) are you referring to?
I think he's referring to the Ballistic Masturbation-induced Scorpion
Awesome, with that said are there any additional resources or documents I can look into for further study? Particularly the technique being used in history or anything that could help me better understand the mechanics of how it works better. I've been searching for some time but the best I have are instructional videos but nothing actually on paper/pdf . I tried searching "bio-mechanics of rifle shooting" and modern isosceles but at best I get information about handgun stances and etc.
Do you shoot bladed with support arm pushed forward, as in the pics posted by JimD, or squared up as shown in the video?
I'm not tracking on which you like, and which your buddies like.
Failure2Stop
06-20-14, 18:36
Awesome, with that said are there any additional resources or documents I can look into for further study? Particularly the technique being used in history or anything that could help me better understand the mechanics of how it works better. I've been searching for some time but the best I have are instructional videos but nothing actually on paper/pdf . I tried searching "bio-mechanics of rifle shooting" and modern isosceles but at best I get information about handgun stances and etc.
I'd direct you to the guys that are in the top 5% of competitive speed shooting such as 3-gun and USCA, and trainers from military unit backgrounds that emphasize individual performance.
There is a common theme.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
I use what's pretty much dubbed the "magpul" or "c-clamp grip" which matches the method in the video @ 4:50.
Buddies of mine run the more traditional style, similar to what's posted below.
http://www.ar15-rifle.com/FM3-22.9marksmanshipmanual/c07.htm
@failure2stop gotcha, i take it that there aren't any books or anything like that written by them so I'll have to ask one of them directly. I've definitely seen the advantage first hand with my own experiments so I won't be compromising the choice I've made anytime soon. Some of the issues my buddies complain about it is that it apparently "wears them out" more than the traditional techniques and that they've seen people break their writs doing that. I personally call BS and that whole "getting tired" thing is some self induced placebo just because they have no intentions of understanding it. But that's another matter, for the most part what matters to me is that I get all the right information I can get so I can better understand how to better apply it when it matters most.
It's circus entertainment for me. I can't wait for the mag well grip to be THE TECHNIQUE again! :sarcastic:
My favorite all time, completely retarded technique... (and I do this at the house every so often to amuse myself) is where you hold the gun off your body, out in front of you pointed up... and then shoulder it and bring the muzzle down on target as needed to slay bodies.
Context - that is a skeet technique - http://www.deadtargetschool.com/SkeetMount.pdf
@Arctic1 Thank you for posting the picture of the rhodesian soldiers, I was going to post that one as well. These techniques date way back if memory serves the Rhodesian image is from 1971. When we talked about "modern" it was a relative term. The "advent" of these techniques over the last 5-10 years rather than the "invent". Almost nothing is new or radically different and there are many many instructors with congruent and opposing views on the subject. To address a few points in the first post though I would offer the following:
1. Yes we did change both the shooters grip and stance. Part of the reason for this was to prevent the creation of a 30 minute video that no one would take the time to watch. Better in general for us to bite things off in smaller pieces and do followup videos. It is possible to adopt an acceptable level of recoil management with a variety of stances/grips but in general the bladed stance allows more rotational force to be applied through the hips and also creates energy transfer over the shoulder with a longer moment arm as the stock is farther from the pivot point. We will be doing a video soon on some kinesiology and get a third party opinion on this as well from some non shooters.
If time is the issue, why not make two videos on two topics?
If your assertion is that shoulders/hips pointing off angle is inferior for recoil management reasons, please explain how these guys keep winning money doing it wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j22CGzs5Vik Just watch Jerry's technique in the opening sequence where he does lateral transitions in both directions with .223, .30cal, and .50BMG caliber rifles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCpOt9xVy4 Again, Kyle's technique in the opening spells it out pretty clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-RIwWXvrg Watch starting at 1:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdtwHzVLSvM shotgun and rifle shooting with lots of lateral transitions.
1A. There are also some non recoil related advantages to this. Increasing your field of view in the threat area, making more efficient work of multiple targets by allowing the shooting to more easily address multiple targets across the threat area without having to twist into an awkward position or readjust feet, as well as exposing as much body armor surface area to the threat.
Yep, and leaning forward with your head means that you start looking out of the tops of your eyes instead of the center, limiting peripheral vision and limiting your visual clarity.
On the body armor subject, are you repeating something you've been taught/ told? Or do you have some significant first hand experience with that topic that we should be aware of?
I hear that get thrown around a lot, but all of the guys I talk to with multiple combat deployments keep saying that when the lost guys, it was to shooters they never saw. "Squaring up" with your armor is 1) placing a bet on the marksmanship abilities of your enemy, 2) making a potential concession in your ability to shoot better in an attempt to suck up rounds better, and 3) presuming that you know where all ballistic threats are, and are not.
For what it's worth, I'm just a civy too, but I also sell body armor for a living to guys that need it. I get protecting yourself, but sacrificing your ability to end the fight faster comes with a risk, too.
2. We certainly would not advocate that students put themselves off balance at any time. distributing the weight more evenly across the platform is actually the objective. With a slight forward body lean the weight is not shifted forward but centered over the feet. Much like an athlete (ie shortstop, volleyball player, tennis player etc.) who may need to move quickly in any direction. As was mentioned, moving quickly and efficiently is very important. Dropping into a deep full auto posture makes that movement more difficult but may be required given certain circumstances. Everyone has probably seen the video of Costa shooting the M60 on full auto off hand. This situation obviously requires adopting a less than optimum position for rapid movement in order to handle the forces applied. However, it is a unique situation with a unique solution. It is important to note that typically do allow the shooter to adjust a foot more rearward i terms of stance to either help with balance when firing larger calibers etc. as long as the shooter can still move in any direction without the use of a "false step" (ie gathering his/her feet before moving) in any direction.
You're demoing a technique about recoil control for defensive shooting with a brake though. For me to really control the gun at bill drill type speeds, I'd need to bend a LOT, sacrificing my mobility to do so, were I to shoot "squared up". Unless I used a muzzle brake, that is. I'm tall and thin though, so my mass/ leverage resisting recoil works very differently with an A2, than it does for a shorter/ stouter guy shooting with a brake.
3. Stance is a very important part of the shooting equation. However, it is less important than the ability to control the weapon with upper body alone. I say this because as soon as we get into shooting on the move the upper body and lower body have to become in a sense independent of one another. A deep full auto posture is not easy to maintain while engaging multiple targets on the move. Keeping the core tight and learning to mitigate recoil to the greatest extent possible without relying on a planted foot offers many advantages. Shooters can maintain a stable platform and upper body rigidity even if they are asked to adopt awkward foot positioning (ie Urban prone, rice patty prone, kneeling etc.)
Agreed, which is why the notion that your feet have to be nearly equal with each other, and your upper body needs to lean forward to create resistance to recoil is absurd. You can create stability with your legs, and drop your weight down in while still keeping your upper body upright. Here's an example:
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/d90king/IMG_2019.jpg
The guy holding the gun was sponsored by CorBon ammo (competitive 3-gunner) in addition to being a 3rd Group guy.
In closing, nothing should be taken out of context, or construed to mean there is always one answer to every problem. We need to consider philosophy of use as well as application. Thank you all for watching, and contributing to the discussion! We love hearing everyone's take on this stuff, it only makes us better! I have been told the day I think I have heard it all is the day I should hang it up LOL.
NCPatrolAR
06-21-14, 11:43
Context - that is a skeet technique - http://www.deadtargetschool.com/SkeetMount.pdf
Also called Satterwhite Ready. Iirc, this position was picked up from the staff at Mid-South, some of who had very heavy shotgun experience.
Also called Satterwhite Ready. Iirc, this position was picked up from the staff at Mid-South, some of who had very heavy shotgun experience.
Bill Burroughs and Gerry Smith who were the earlier instructors at the S&W Academy who passed it on to me in the very early 80's. They also credited Satterwhite.
Discussed quite a bit in the past and I had a video at one time addressing this topic. The outstretched grip is nothing new. Only with the proliferation of units going to the compact MP5 did the magwell type of grips come into prominence. Even when units made the mass exodus from the MP5 and adopting M4's, the magwell grip remained for a long time. Only when length of handguards or modern rails got longer for carbines did this allow for us to get our hands back where they belonged which was further out on the weapon.
My rifle stance is derived from a combination of my competitive shotgun years as a teen mixed with a slight more athleticism stance intermixed. With a pistol I am more rigid about toes, hips and shoulders facing the target creating a more natural body alignment and point of aim. With the rifle I am not as strict about this and I do offset my feet and blade ever so slightly. This is because I can get away with a lot more with the rifle in terms of recoil. This slightly opened up stance also allows me a wider field of fire transitionally with knee bend and body rotation without needing to move my feet, ie. skeet type of stance, but with a wider more athletic base that allows for more burst mobility if needing to move the feet. My support hand is extended but a bend in the elbow in which the elbow cams downward creating torque of the weapon into the shoulder. So it is not quite "scorpion like".
I don't have a large wingspan so I am not fully extended on the stock, however the stock is more towards full extension than fully collapsed. For myself, the key for the stock position is directly related to the reach I am able to attain towards the muzzle end of the rifle. I can extend the stock completely but that generally draws my support hand further away from the muzzle end of the weapon and I do not wish to induce more upper body rotation (blading) to maintain hand placement. Even with a good base and a good amount of primary side foot drop, I tend to induce more leverage into the weapon as needed by inducing a bend in my forward support knee.
I will note that natural body mechanics may vary for each individual and no two persons are exactly alike. While I do tend to suggest certain methods or techniques, not one shoe size fits all. I will note that weapon dependent, I may cut down on my body rotation and square up a bit more to the target. Softer shooting, perhaps compensated rifles may allow for more flexibility in my presentation. As for muzzle up, it is a natural for myself as that is how we drove our sights with the shotgun. In the real world, just point the muzzle in the safest direction for the given situation. I always laughed when guys said to always point the muzzle down, because what if there were people above you on the second floor. My reply, "well what if I have team members securing bodies on the first floor and I am now working the upper floor?" Learn many techniques with high degrees of proficiency and you will adapt much easier.
These two photos are a good representation of my current stance
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t1.0-9/1150191_1452213241659877_928909079_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/73389_1449158491965352_494033716_n.jpg
On the body armor subject, are you repeating something you've been taught/ told? Or do you have some significant first hand experience with that topic that we should be aware of?
I think it probably something he heard.
I'm not speaking for him, but, in the law enforcement venue, roughly 30% of the officers killed while wearing body armor in the last couple decades were killed by shots to the torso.
Of that roughly 30%, between 44 to 48% were killed by shots that entered between the side panels or through the armhole area of the vest.
For example: between 2002 and 2011, 500 officers were killed by gunfire; 332 while wearing body armor. Of those 332 officers, 105 (31.6%) were killed by shots to the torso.
Of those 105 officers, 48 (45.7%) were killed by shots that entered between the side panels, shoulder area, or armhole area of the vest.
12 were killed by shots that entered between the side panels of vest;
36 were killed by shots that entered through the armhole or shoulder area of vest.
Life is full of compromises, based on that continuing data, I feel comfortable teaching officers torso/shoulders square into the threat. The body can rotate at the waist so you can adjust.
I think it probably something he heard.
I'm not speaking for him, but, in the law enforcement venue, roughly 30% of the officers killed while wearing body armor in the last couple decades were killed by shots to the torso.
So 70% are dying from wounds that didn't land on their torso.
Of that roughly 30%, between 44 to 48% were killed by shots that entered between the side panels or through the armhole area of the vest.
And how many of those shootings occured with calibers that their vest wouldn't have stopped anyway?
For example: between 2002 and 2011, 500 officers were killed by gunfire; 332 while wearing body armor. Of those 332 officers, 105 (31.6%) were killed by shots to the torso.
Of those 105 officers, 48 (45.7%) were killed by shots that entered between the side panels, shoulder area, or armhole area of the vest.
So, lets add some context to that.
How many of those instances where officers facing a caliber that their armor wouldn't have stopped anyway?
How many of those instances involved ballistic threats from multiple angles (multiple attackers who weren't kind enough to stand next to each other for you)?
How many of those who died were shooting pistol vs. rifle, and how many of them were isosceles shooters vs weaver shooters for pistol, and square vs. bladed for rifle?
12 were killed by shots that entered between the side panels of vest;
36 were killed by shots that entered through the armhole or shoulder area of vest.
Life is full of compromises, based on that continuing data, I feel comfortable teaching officers torso/shoulders square into the threat. The body can rotate at the waist so you can adjust.
It's no secret that gunfire is more lethal when it isn't stopped by armor, but an officer who was shot with a 7.62x39mm cartridge through the armpit would have been just as dead as if it went through his IIIa soft armor, head on. So those instances shouldn't be used to influence a decision on how to stand with a gun in you hand.
More than that, officers are not always going to have the privilege of keeping their body directly oriented on the only threat... and using your own statistics, 70% of the time their armor isn't going to make a difference in their survivability, anyway. Treating a downed innocent/ LEO, turning and heading for cover, getting caught in an L-shape, it's all real world.
I have no problem recommending that an officer shoot in a way that maximizes their lethality, rather than sacrifices it while depending on their enemies marksmanship to land rounds on their chest. For some folks, on some weapon systems, that might be more square, for others it may be more bladed.
Taking rounds on your soft armor isn't an easy thing to fight through, and anyone who has done some sims work can tell you how much their hands and arms are hit during FOF scenarios. Your brachial artery isn't going to be protected no matter how you stand, and that's still a lethal target on the body.
Hey Jim D. - Rub your earlobes or something. I was just trying to provide some context for the basis of what this guy had heard and repeated from the LEO perspective. I thought I made it pretty clear I was talking from the LEO perspective, the primary threat to LEO's is still the handgun - generally 70% or more.
So 70% are dying from wounds that didn't land on their torso?
I don’t see what your point is. Most officers die from shots to the head, 247 of 500 (49.66%) killed with firearms between 2002 and 2011. Of officers killed while wearing vests, 56.3% were killed by shots to the head.
How many of those instances where officers facing a caliber that their armor wouldn't have stopped anyway?
In the decade I’m quoting (only one on the thumb drive I have right now is 2002 - 2011) there were 67 officers killed with rifles, 22 of those officers were killed by rounds that penetrated their vest.
That leaves us the possibility that, yes, 45 of the 48 officers killed COULD have been killed by rifle shots that went between the side panels or through the armhole area of the vest.
How many of those instances involved ballistic threats from multiple angles (multiple attackers who weren't kind enough to stand next to each other for you)?
Between 2001 and 2011 there were 595 offenders involved in the slaying of 543 officers, so at the most there were 52 cases involving multiple assailants. I’m sure all of them were armed with rifles and maneuvered into an ‘L’ shaped ambush. :rolleyes:
How many of those who died were shooting pistol vs. rifle, and how many of them were isosceles shooters vs weaver shooters for pistol, and square vs. bladed for rifle?
Got no way of knowing that. Someone once said:
If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough, nor using cover correctly.
And….
In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
It's no secret that gunfire is more lethal when it isn't stopped by armor....
Thanks for letting me in on that (sorry, couldn't help it).
but an officer who was shot with a 7.62x39mm cartridge through the armpit would have been just as dead as if it went through his IIIa soft armor, head on. So those instances shouldn't be used to influence a decision on how to stand with a gun in you hand.
That is a pretty absolute statement, that I don’t believe you can substantiate. I do know that way back before TCCC, the Marine Corps spent a whole bunch of time teaching me how to deal with sucking chest wounds, so there must be some potential for surviving a 7.62x39 to the chest.
I could just as absolutely assert that you are more likely to survive a rifle wound to the chest if it penetrates square into the frontal chest wall as it only gets one organ that way, hopefully not the heart.
I may be nuts, but given the choice between getting shot through the armpit into the chest cavity, or straight through from the front, I'm calling front.
I have no problem recommending that an officer shoot in a way that maximizes their lethality, rather than sacrifices it while depending on their enemies marksmanship to land rounds on their chest.
Well **** me running, I didn't say anything about standing still and sucking bullets. And in terms of lethality, I don't keep track, but I've had to testify several times about training after one of our folks went out and won a gunfight. Once again, I'd like to stress I'm talking police officers.
Taking rounds on your soft armor isn't an easy thing to fight through –
It’s not easy but a handgun hit (as opposed to rifle) to the vest does not incapacitate nor throw you to the ground. Officers fight through such events. Go to the DuPont Survivors Club and watch some videos they have of officers taking multiple rounds and staying in the fight, here’s one –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMU2LuE-aakhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMU2LuE-aak
Deputy Huff needs to work on his warrior cry, but if you watch the clock he is out of the holster, to back of the suspects vehicle and putting rounds into the back of the suspect's seat and head rest within 4 seconds. I'd say he fought through it.
Your brachial artery isn't going to be protected no matter how you stand, and that's still a lethal target on the body –
2002-2011 – number of officers killed by shots to the arms or hands – ZERO.
Also, I think I’d be a bit more concerned with a hit to the axillary artery (the brachial’s mother) – you aren’t going to TQ a wound to that artery.
If you are a trainer, you have to make decisions on what you are going to train, and you ought to be able to explain the reasons for those decisions. I'm comfortable with my reasoning within the LEO arena so that has been what we've begun with for over 15 years. It's one way, not the way.
In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
Ya know I keep hearing this, yet it seems far from the truth when such things are in continual discussion...Newhall for one.
Having been in a few scrapes on the street, being able to sit in on AA debriefs etc. over the years, this IS one of the things I do look at...and have been doing so for about 20 years now. Those who have seen the elephant and knows where it poops, also seem to pay attention to such things...at least with the folks I keep in touch with anyway.
Not paying attention to the details of such things is leaving an important part of training behind.
In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
Ya know I keep hearing this, yet it seems far from the truth when such things are in continual discussion...Newhall for one.
Having been in a few scrapes on the street, being able to sit in on AA debriefs etc. over the years, this IS one of the things I do look at...and have been doing so for about 20 years now. Those who have seen the elephant and knows where it poops, also seem to pay attention to such things...at least with the folks I keep in touch with anyway.
Not paying attention to the details of such things is leaving an important part of training behind.
Google - Murphy's Laws of Combat or Marine Laws of Combat - don't know of the originator. I believe said another way 'Technique is fine, but results are the only things that really count.'
Newhall was definitely the seminal event that made LE realize they needed to make some changes to the way officers train.
John_Burns
06-22-14, 14:35
Also called Satterwhite Ready. Iirc, this position was picked up from the staff at Mid-South, some of who had very heavy shotgun experience.
In sporting clays that would be "unmounted" ie butt stock below the shoulder. International skeet requires the shooter stay unmounted until the clay bird is visible. Recoil control is actually very important in sporting clays and in skeet because of "pairs". The split time on some true pairs, including the transition to the second bird, can get below .5 seconds and shooting a 12 gauge with an ounce of shot produces quite a bit more recoil than an AR.
Short video of sporting clays with the AR and unmounted ready.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foEnuKWfZWM
For what it is worth a shot laterally through the torso is more dangerous than one straight on due to the increase chance of both lungs being punctured. In hunting a shot that only hits one lung of an animal is at times even survivable for the animal. Puncture both lungs and the end comes pretty quick.
Samson-Pro
06-24-14, 08:08
but an officer who was shot with a 7.62x39mm cartridge through the armpit would have been just as dead as if it went through his IIIa soft armor, head on. So those instances shouldn't be used to influence a decision on how to stand with a gun in you hand.
That is a pretty absolute statement, that I don’t believe you can substantiate. I do know that way back before TCCC, the Marine Corps spent a whole bunch of time teaching me how to deal with sucking chest wounds, so there must be some potential for surviving a 7.62x39 to the chest.
I could just as absolutely assert that you are more likely to survive a rifle wound to the chest if it penetrates square into the frontal chest wall as it only gets one organ that way, hopefully not the heart.
I may be nuts, but given the choice between getting shot through the armpit into the chest cavity, or straight through from the front, I'm calling front.
I have no problem recommending that an officer shoot in a way that maximizes their lethality, rather than sacrifices it while depending on their enemies marksmanship to land rounds on their chest.
Well **** me running, I didn't say anything about standing still and sucking bullets. And in terms of lethality, I don't keep track, but I've had to testify several times about training after one of our folks went out and won a gunfight. Once again, I'd like to stress I'm talking police officers.
Taking rounds on your soft armor isn't an easy thing to fight through –
It’s not easy but a handgun hit (as opposed to rifle) to the vest does not incapacitate nor throw you to the ground. Officers fight through such events. Go to the DuPont Survivors Club and watch some videos they have of officers taking multiple rounds and staying in the fight, here’s one –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMU2LuE-aakhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMU2LuE-aak
Your brachial artery isn't going to be protected no matter how you stand, and that's still a lethal target on the body –
2002-2011 – number of officers killed by shots to the arms or hands – ZERO.
Also, I think I’d be a bit more concerned with a hit to the axillary artery (the brachial’s mother) – you aren’t going to TQ a wound to that artery.
If you are a trainer, you have to make decisions on what you are going to train, and you ought to be able to explain the reasons for those decisions. I'm comfortable with my reasoning within the LEO arena so that has been what we've begun with for over 15 years. It's one way, not the way.
@26Inf Thank you for your contribution. Wish I had more time to stay current with all of these discussions but I get pulled in a million different directions. Thank you for the very informative post and also for giving us some medical insight. Andrew and I have both worked for several EMS agencies (I still am currently working) both municipal and private and Andrew was a qualified SWAT medic before taking his position at Samson. I didn't really have time to get into some of the finer medical points but you had them covered. I'll say one more time that there are no absolutes. unique problems, unique solutions. We also are not so conceited or beholden to our pride to think there is not more than one way to skin a cat. Shooting is a martial art and my study and instruction of others in the field is constantly evolving. The reality is that a 15 degree difference in someone's stance and whether there stock is at position 3 or 5 is for the most part trivial. Many have already pointed out there are MANY other factors which may or may not be more critical at any given time (mindset, SA, use of cover etc.) No one in this discussion seems to be actually advocating for the use of a traditional marksmanship style stance at all. All of us just have a slightly different take on many of the same "improvements" to it. It's not worth making enemies over. I welcome instruction from all individuals with good information to offer regardless of their background. If any of you are in the area I would welcome you to come share with us as well and we can learn something from one another on our range in NH. -best regards Tyler
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.