Pistol tac reload - which do you use and why [Archive]

andy t

10-30-09, 15:07

During my first class three years ago, we were taught that if there is a need to "top off" a pistol during a "lull" in a gunfight, use a "reload with retention" technique - where a partially empty magazine is removed and stowed. A fresh magazine is then draw and loaded into the pistol. Some benefits to this technique: It's easier to manipulate one magazine at a time, especially under stress. The motion for speed load and "tactical load" are the same. There is also the notion that the original "tac reload" - where you hold both magazines in support hand - dates back to early Gunsite days of expensive 1911 magazines and gravel surface.
However, there are still trainers that advocate - sometimes with strong words - the use of classical "tac load" - where you retrieve a fully loaded magazine first, then you remove a partially full magazine and insert the full magazine into the pistol. The common theme is that your pistol is out of the fight for a shorter duration since you are not going from your waist or wherever the spare magazine is. However, given that juggling two magazines by the magwell is a rather tricky endeavor, I don't think it's much of a win over reload with retention. The only argument for "tac load" I heard that I buy is this: In a fluid situation you may loose track of how many spare magazines you have. So if you do a reload with retention, and stow your partially loaded magazine somewhere inaccesible ( behind your shirt, etc) and then, as you go to retrieve the fully loaded magazine, it's not there. You are in deep doodoo.
Still, I am more in favor of "reload with retention" technique. I wonder what other people's thoughts and techniques are.

Thanks.

Shadow1198

10-30-09, 18:41

I took a class from Paul Gomez recently, and he taught the method of removing and stowing the partial mag first, then loading a new mag. I had been previously taught by friends and other more experienced shooters the older traditional method of grabbing the full mag first. I gave it an honest try in the class, and I plan on practicing the method Paul taught to give it an honest try and see what pros/cons I can find with it. I will say that I noticed with the traditional method on a single stack gun, holding both mags at once isn't a big deal and I personally prefer the traditional method. With some double stacks, and depending on a person's hand size, I can see the traditional method possibly not working too well in some situations. Just for fun, in class I had also tried out the traditional method, and actually fumbled a couple tac loads pretty badly (my fault plus I hadn't been shooting in too damn long) and didn't get positive mag insertion a few times as it was darn hot and humid and I was sweating profusely with a nicely worn in gen 2 G19. ;) For now, I'm going to look at it as tools for the toolbox and will practice each method to determine if I should stick with one or practice both and use different ones for different guns. Personally, I do tend to prefer the traditional method as I like the idea of having those rounds in the partial mag still in the gun and ready to go should I have to engage right in the middle of a reload. I don't know if that is a realistic factor to consider, that's just the way I personally feel. One thing is for sure, no matter what method you use it sure helps keeping up with training so whatever method you use you can do well. I hadn't shot, dry practiced, or anything for probably 2 months before this class, and I felt like a total newbie afterwords. ;) lol

gringop

10-30-09, 20:18

How big are your hands and how big are your mags? Can you perform tac-loads flawlessly when tired, wet, prone, etc.

After training for years to do tac-loads, that is what I default to in competition but I also practice the RWR. I don't think there is any argument that the RWR is simpler and easier to do.

In a self-defense situation, your tactical reload should be happening when you are at a lull, behind cover or right before reholstering so I would give up a little of the speed increase I get with a tac-load for the simplicity of the RWR.

YMMV.

Gringop

YammyMonkey

10-31-09, 00:36

Overall, the RWR is simpler, faster & can be adapted to more scenarios. If you train the RWR it is not a big deal to strip the mag out & toss it aside while going for the new mag if you discover it's empty or you need to get the gun running NOW because the situation changed. I'll usually try to stow an empty mag once in my rear pocket. If it won't go I drop it & get on with the reload.

Likewise, the ability to control where your spent mag ends up could be kind of a big deal. Think mag dropped on tile/linoleum/wood flooring in front of you, you step on it, slip & go for a ride. No bueno.

Part of the instruction with the RWR needs to be that if you're stowing the depleted mag you need to do so in a manner that allows you to access it again if needed. Hence the reason I usually stow in the back pocket.

NCPatrolAR

10-31-09, 00:48

I practice both but prefer the classic tactical reload. With the classic method I can reinsert the partial mag in my mag carrier if working in plain clothes/off-duty. With the RWR I cant do this.

Dave James

10-31-09, 00:54

We taught the "RWR" from the begining when autos where issued, but it was all ways stressed that it was done during a lull or behind cover, and we worked it during each and every requal, we did modify it a tad and alowed those who could hold the mag bases together in the palm up into the 90's, then a new Chief took over

JIMO, for those gunners' who take the art of gunfighting serious, either or when it comes to tac reloads, as you are the ones whom put in the time and training, I still run into those who believe run'em dry and then go for broke, but I have found like others that grounding empties is a sure way to take yourself or others out of the game, seen several twisted ankles do to mags in the dirt

andy t

10-31-09, 08:18

Southnarc (and probably others) teaches that as part of your reload - whether speed or RWR, you always use your support hand to strip the mag out of the pistol. If doing a speed load, toss the empty mag behind you, since you are likely moving forward. This may mitigate the "slippery mag" syndrome somewhat.

ToddG

10-31-09, 09:45

Like NCPatrolAR, all else being equal I'll do the traditional "tac load" because it allows me to put the saved ammo back in a pouch ... where I normally expect spare ammo to be.

When speed is an issue (i.e., playing a game) I'll do the RWR because it is definitely faster.

The reality is that I almost never do any kind of tac load. The concept of lull is totally artificial. You have no way of knowing if your "lull" will continue for the next five seconds. Tac loads work great on the range, they work great in a live fire shoothouse when no one is shooting back. Add force on force to the mix, though, and suddenly you see people are very hesitant to perform administrative actions with their guns when a BG could come around the corner at any moment. A better approach, IMHO, is to do an IPSC "speed" reload (dropping the partially loaded magazine on the ground) and then if your lull continues, bend down and pick up the spare mag once your pistol is back up and running 100%.

Of course, this changes when you're in a team environment or if you're in some unusual situation where you may have to go days or weeks without resupply.

GrumpyM4

11-01-09, 06:57

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The purpose of a Tac re-load is to maintain your weapon in the highest state of readiness as possible while keeping the window of unavalibility as short as possible.

The traditional Tac re-load accomplishes this, regardless of the criteria one uses to decide at which point during a gunfight this technique is performed.

In my experience and opinion, dealing with multiple magazines in a single hand is a training issue, not a hand size issue unless you're a midget with little t-rex arms.

I'm 6'2" with small hands for my size (cue the dick size jokes). My 5'8" wife has the same size hands that I do, and if I can teach her these techniques properly as well as perform them myself without fumbling my G17 mags, then it's something that can be taught as a matter of muscle memory.

My question to muddy the waters a little more, is how many times has the Tac re-load actually been performed in the real world in actual gunfights? I personally have never read an AAR of a situation where a shooter engaged a target or targets, performed a Tac re-load, and then found opportunity to engage secondary targets. Perhaps I just don't read enough.

Anybody know of this actually happening? In my memory, nearly all real world gunfights that involve re-loads, involves shooting to slide lock and what we commonly refer to as a "combat reload" followed by continuing the gunfight (in the rare example where the gunfight lasts more then a few seconds).

I'm sure that with the large knowledge base of this website, this question can be answered.

Jay Cunningham

11-01-09, 07:09

The reality is that I almost never do any kind of tac load. The concept of lull is totally artificial. You have no way of knowing if your "lull" will continue for the next five seconds. Tac loads work great on the range, they work great in a live fire shoothouse when no one is shooting back.

This is about where I am currently. Very interesting.

Gutshot John

11-01-09, 09:51

LOKNLOD

11-01-09, 10:11

NCPatrolAR

11-01-09, 14:10

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Anybody know of this actually happening? In my memory, nearly all real world gunfights that involve re-loads, involves shooting to slide lock and what we commonly refer to as a "combat reload" followed by continuing the gunfight (in the rare example where the gunfight lasts more then a few seconds).

I'm sure that with the large knowledge base of this website, this question can be answered.

I know of it being done at my agency, but the suspects didnt have any fight left in them so they gave up without further gun play.

ToddG

11-01-09, 14:45

I know of it being done at my agency, but the suspects didnt have any fight left in them so they gave up without further gun play.

Question if you're at liberty to answer: Have any of your guys done a tac load and then fired additional rounds? From your description I'm assuming none of them has needed to rely on the "saved" mag but I'm curious as to whether any of them actually had a lull as opposed to reloading after the fight.

I'm all for topping off the gun before holstering it. To me, that's a pretty safe situation. If you feel comfortable enough to put the gun away, you have the time and calm to futz with your mags.

NCPatrolAR

11-02-09, 06:13

Question if you're at liberty to answer: Have any of your guys done a tac load and then fired additional rounds? From your description I'm assuming none of them has needed to rely on the "saved" mag but I'm curious as to whether any of them actually had a lull as opposed to reloading after the fight. I'm all for topping off the gun before holstering it. To me, that's a pretty safe situation. If you feel comfortable enough to put the gun away, you have the time and calm to futz with your mags.

I dont view the fight being over, in the LE world, until the suspect is in handcuffs. In a recent case we had, officers engaged a carload of suspects that were shooting into the crowd at a club then moved to fire on the officers. The officers engaged the suspects as they rolled past, several tac loaded then chased the vehicle until it stopped. Once it stopped we (I was on scene by that point) had to pull the suspects out during a felony stop. There were two loaded pistols still in the vehicle, but the suspects (2 were hit) no longer felt like shooting at anyone. ;)

But to get to your direct point; I dont know if anyone here, in a non-team format, has ever had to tac load and then engage more suspects. Our firearms program was lacking for a number of years and I dont recall even being taught a tac load when I went through the academy. I'll ask around and see if I can find some cases of it occuring/not occuring though.

rob_s

11-02-09, 07:44

It seems weird that the RWR should be faster. Assuming I understood what the definitions are:

Tac-load: partial mag is ejected into support hand, support hand drops to stow partial mag, full mag is withdrawn and brought to the gun to be loaded.

RWR: support hand drops to pull full mag from pouch then returns to the gun, partial mag is ejected into the hand for retention, full mag is loaded, support hand drops to stow the retained partial mag.

You're reaching for the waist twice (once to retrieve the as opposed to just once with a conventional tac load?

I do see the tactical virtue in a RWR in that the gun is "light" for the least possible amount of time while you stow your partial but in terms of overall speed if you're gaming.

You have them backwards.

On the OP...

I do the tac-load with the pistol most times, for the reasons NC posted. I do the RWR with the carbine because I have seen too many people bumble the tac-load on the range to think that it would ever be a 100% solution under pressure.

I agree that the idea of the "lull" has gotten pretty vague, but I can think of possible applications in my own situation.

FWIW, we did a "lab" on this at drills and at our matches, and with the carbine the RWR was faster for almost all shooters unless they had many many hours with the tac-load and zero with the RWR (which was the case for at least two shooters).

It's pretty easy to see why it's faster shot-to-shot. RWR your support hand goes gun-belt-gun and the Tac-load goes gun-belt-gun-belt.

RWK

11-02-09, 08:05

The "speed reload all the time" concept sounds good on paper:

Unless it's dark and you can't see that black magazine on the black asphalt/in the tall grass/in the sand...
Unless you're moving while reloading...
Unless the top round is damaged or partially dislodged when the magazine lands top-down...
Unless you damage one of the feed lips when the magazine lands top-down...
Unless you wind up with a magazine full of dirt/sand/mud...

The "lull" is not always an artificiality. Some gunfights do take place over extended times and distances (distance, not range -- think getting out of a barrio in Mexico City...) and the people involved need every single round of ammo they can get/keep. The tactical reload has its place.

RWK

11-02-09, 08:13

There is also the notion that the original "tac reload" - where you hold both magazines in support hand - dates back to early Gunsite days of expensive 1911 magazines and gravel surface.

False. The "early days" were flush with plain, inexpensive USGI magazines.

However, there are still trainers that advocate - sometimes with strong words - the use of classical "tac load" - where you retrieve a fully loaded magazine first, then you remove a partially full magazine and insert the full magazine into the pistol. The common theme is that your pistol is out of the fight for a shorter duration since you are not going from your waist or wherever the spare magazine is.

There are other benefits as well, which others have already mentioned.

However, given that juggling two magazines by the magwell is a rather tricky endeavor...

It is...?

Jay Cunningham

11-02-09, 08:23

rob_s

11-02-09, 08:37

LOKNLOD

11-02-09, 08:46

I do my best to impart the idea of not getting wrapped up in particulars, but to simply actively manage the ammunition on the gun.

I like this.

Jay Cunningham

11-02-09, 08:49

I do this too, but I do use the terms as a way to describe what I'm teaching. We teach the RWR, Tac-load, speed load, and emergency load, more as techniques than terms, and then advise the shooters that it's up to them to manage their ammo. If they want to work their emergency reloads that night, have at it. If they prefer to stay topped up and focus on the shooting, more power to ya'.

I demonstrate the particulars as well, but I don't make mention of them after that. I'll remind to "manage your ammo!"

Gutshot John

11-02-09, 08:56

As a mentee following up on T_K's point I think there is a lot of wisdom in his statement confirmed by top-flight instructors.

As I think back on training with Vickers, Rogers and Lamb none of them pushed tac, RWR or whatever. Usually that was simply a small module with a few drills and then we moved on. If a reload was emphasized it was the "speed" or "emergency" reload. There was the occasional reminder to "top of your guns" but that's as far as it got.

In fact when I asked if I should practice reloads I remember them saying "I understand what you're trying to do but..." and at least two of them then used the exact same expression - "just manage your ammunition."

ToddG

11-02-09, 09:23

I dont view the fight being over, in the LE world, until the suspect is in handcuffs.

Understood. Basically, as you said, I was asking if anyone had done a tac load and then fired additional rounds. In other words, performed a tac reload in a "lull" rather than at the end of shooting.

The "speed reload all the time" concept sounds good on paper:

Unless it's dark and you can't see that black magazine on the black asphalt/in the tall grass/in the sand...

But since I have a "lull" I have time to find it. Otherwise, why am I doing a tac load at that time?

Unless you're moving while reloading...

But since I have a safe "lull" why do I have to be moving so fast that it prevents me from doing the tac load?

Unless the top round is damaged or partially dislodged when the magazine lands top-down...

But since I have a "lull" I can take the time to check it.

Unless you damage one of the feed lips when the magazine lands top-down...

Seriously? I'm more likely to win the lottery.

Unless you wind up with a magazine full of dirt/sand/mud...

It's a lull. I can clean it. :cool:

Jay Cunningham

11-02-09, 09:26

Lull.

lol

NCPatrolAR

11-02-09, 09:47

I'm not a fan of the speed reload because I have a limited supply of ammo on me and don't care to ditch a mag with rounds in it unless I have no option. I'm also not a fan of having to intentionaly dropping something then picking it back up if at all possible

Gutshot John

11-02-09, 10:23

I'm noticing much of my confusion with the concept of reload is that definitions are so unclear it becomes a philosophical debate as opposed to a simple technique.

In looking around I can see that RWR means you stow the partial mag first but in definition seems flawed. Either tac-load or RWR means you "retain" the partial mag for later, the main difference being topping off the gun first or last. "Retention" should mean "to hold" so it seems (though I admit it's not) that you're holding the partial mag while performing the reload?

A "speed reload" from my understanding isn't really a tactical reload in the sense that you're necessarily retrieving the dropped mag because the mag has been emptied. From my perspective the emergent condition of getting your gun back up means the dropped mag is gone. Maybe a better way of saying it is "emergency reload"?

These are rhetorical questions so I don't know if its worth pursuing in this thread. I can see that this understanding isn't really current usage but from someone who obviously doesn't get all the nuances involved with reloads, the simplicity of "managing ammunition" cuts through a lot of haze.

rob_s

11-02-09, 10:42

"retention" referring to retaining the magazine before doing anything else. Not in your hand but somewhere else on your person (pouch, pocket, waistband, etc.

NCPatrolAR

11-02-09, 10:49

Gutshot John

11-02-09, 11:06

"retention" referring to retaining the magazine before doing anything else. Not in your hand but somewhere else on your person (pouch, pocket, waistband, etc.

I understand, what I'm saying is that the definition is a bit flawed because in both reloads you're "retaining" the mag on your person. The nuance is the order of the retention. "retention"; "retain"; "tenacious", "tenancy" all evolve from 'to hold in the hand' so it seems more clear to assume that "RWR" means holding the mag in hand vs. stowing it somewhere on your person. I concede that this definition isn't commonly held, but I think we can all blame the SAT. :)

But that's not even really the point that the misunderstanding illustrates, trying to figure out what reload to do where just adds another layer of complexity and confusion...especially under stress.

Just being told to "manage your ammunition" cuts through a lot of that.

rob_s

11-02-09, 11:18

Just being told to "manage your ammunition" cuts through a lot of that.

The only problem with that is you have to start by teaching them the mechanics of how to do that, and with that you wind up needing to call them something. Of course you can intentionally refuse to use the terminology but I don't know that doing so accomplishes anything. I suppose you can say "here's two ways of topping up the gun" and "here's two ways of putting fresh ammo in the gun in a hurry".

Not calling them anything avoids the confusion of semantics, but frankly all four terms (reload-with-retention, tactical-reload, speed-reload, and emergency-reload) have become pretty widespread and well-known and as an instructor starting with green shooters I think it is part of an instructor's responsibility to send them out into the world with a vocabulary they can use to interact with the rest of the training world.

Gutshot John

11-02-09, 11:42

The only problem with that is you have to start by teaching them the mechanics of how to do that, and with that you wind up needing to call them something. Of course you can intentionally refuse to use the terminology but I don't know that doing so accomplishes anything. I suppose you can say "here's two ways of topping up the gun" and "here's two ways of putting fresh ammo in the gun in a hurry".

Not calling them anything avoids the confusion of semantics, but frankly all four terms (reload-with-retention, tactical-reload, speed-reload, and emergency-reload) have become pretty widespread and well-known and as an instructor starting with green shooters I think it is part of an instructor's responsibility to send them out into the world with a vocabulary they can use to interact with the rest of the training world.

Respectfully I think you're missing the point.

I'm not refusing to use the terminology, I just think it's flawed but that's a semantic debate that neither of us has any interest in. If those are the commonly held definitions I'm quite content to use them to minimize confusion. I can execute the accepted techniques and while I conceded my definitions were flawed I was presuming that those who are discussing this also knew how to execute them also.

That most instructors seem to spend more time on "emergency" than "tactical" reloads it seems clear that "managing your ammunition" means using common sense and a modicum of situational awareness.

Assuming there is a "lull" and "no threat" we've been all doing "tactical reloads" every time we go out to the range. If you can't safely load a magazine into the gun without having to learn the difference between "tactical" and "emergency" reload than you've got bigger problems than any instructor can fix.

RWK

11-02-09, 11:46

But since I have a "lull" I have time to find it. Otherwise, why am I doing a tac load at that time?

But since I have a safe "lull" why do I have to be moving so fast that it prevents me from doing the tac load?

But since I have a "lull" I can take the time to check it.

Seriously? I'm more likely to win the lottery.

It's a lull. I can clean it. :cool:

Just like a lawyer to try to turn a lull into a hiatus... :rolleyes::D

rob_s

11-02-09, 11:55

Respectfully I think you're missing the point.
actually, it seems to me that you're making my point. ;)

I'm not refusing to use the terminology, I just think it's flawed but that's a semantic debate that neither of us has any interest in. If those are the commonly held definitions I'm quite content to use them to minimize confusion. I can execute the accepted techniques and while I conceded my definitions were flawed I was presuming that those who are discussing this also knew how to execute them also.
I was referring to refusing to use the terminology from an instructor's point of view, not the shooter's. A shooter can only use the terminology he's been exposed to. Since I get guys with a very broad range of backgrounds I can tell who they have trained with pretty easily as soon as they open their mouth.

That most instructors seem to spend more time on "emergency" than "tactical" reloads it seems clear that "managing your ammunition" means using common sense and a modicum of situational awareness.
I think you have this backwards again. Most instructors I've trained with focus on keeping the gun topped up. Situational Awareness is exactly what it is, and you need to be situationally aware enough to keep the gun fed.

Assuming there is a "lull" and "no threat" we've been all doing "tactical reloads" every time we go out to the range. If you can't safely load a magazine into the gun without having to learn the difference between "tactical" and "emergency" reload than you've got bigger problems than any instructor can fix.
There are ways and means of loading and charging the gun that work well for one application that don't work so well for another. Less so with the pistol, but we see bad habits from a lot of shooters that are more than capable at hitting the target that have some pretty unusual ways of loading and charging the gun, both short and long.

this thread is a perfect example of where knowing and understanding the terminology becomes important. There is the argument of "who cares which you do" in which case there's probably not much point in that person replying to the thread. However one needs to know the terminology in order to be able to come up with that opinion in the context of the techniques being discussed.

Gutshot John

11-02-09, 12:12

actually, it seems to me that you're making my point. ;)

If you say so.

I was referring to refusing to use the terminology from an instructor's point of view, not the shooter's. A shooter can only use the terminology he's been exposed to. Since I get guys with a very broad range of backgrounds I can tell who they have trained with pretty easily as soon as they open their mouth.

In my experience students often come to different (often flawed) understandings no matter what the instructor says which is why clarification in threads become valuable.

I think you have this backwards again. Most instructors I've trained with focus on keeping the gun topped up. Situational Awareness is exactly what it is, and you need to be situationally aware enough to keep the gun fed.

You misunderstand. Keeping your gun topped up IS "managing your ammunition" as a mindset rather than getting sidetracked by a huge debate on RWR vs. tac-load etc. If they do focus on a particular technique it is the emergency reload. If situational awareness dictates there is no threat and you can top off your gun safely than what difference does it make whether you do RWR or tac-load so long as you can perform at least one of them competently? I certainly agreed that the gun-belt-gun beats gun-belt-gun-belt-gun.

My apologies for letting that point get sidetracked by questioning the validity of definitions.

There are ways and means of loading and charging the gun that work well for one application that don't work so well for another. Less so with the pistol, but we see bad habits from a lot of shooters that are more than capable at hitting the target that have some pretty unusual ways of loading and charging the gun, both short and long.

Agreed.

this thread is a perfect example of where knowing and understanding the terminology becomes important. There is the argument of "who cares which you do" in which case there's probably not much point in that person replying to the thread. However one needs to know the terminology in order to be able to come up with that opinion in the context of the techniques being discussed.

No one has ever said "who cares what you do" only that absent a threat the differences between RWR and tactical reload seem banal as they both accomplish the same thing.

ToddG

11-02-09, 16:15

FWIW, the nomenclature distinguishing "tac reload" and "RWR" comes from IDPA. Prior to that, both camps called their technique the "tactical reload."

RWR quickly got labeled a gamer technique because, as mentioned previously, it's demonstrably faster (in most circumstances) and therefore everyone who cared about his score used it. Then people realized that stowing the partial mag in their waistband at 12 o'clock was much faster than stowing it in a pocket, and soon the waistband-RWR was in vogue as the reload of choice even over the slidelock reload in many instances.

The gamer label was ironic, of course, because the organization that first widely taught and advocated the technique was Glock's training division, based on experiences with LE/mil folks who lacked the hand size, coordination, or training time to juggle both mags simultaneously.

GrumpyM4

11-02-09, 16:23

Personally, I believe that having labels for actions is a necessary thing. Especially with the cross polination between shooting schools from Civ to LE to Mil.

If everybody is working off of the same page insofar as the basics, it makes it easier for an instructor to be able to instruct a course of fire where multiple techniques are involved.

Lets say it's a modified three position drill followed by athreat scan and a tac re-load, movement from the 50 yard line to the 25 yard line engaging targets on the move, followed by another tac re-load and threat scan.

Having that common useage terminology makes it easy for students to process and complete the exercise as well as making it muscle memory to "manage their ammunition".

BUT, I can also see how in advanced classes, this will start to be used as a crutch. I really like the ideal of "manage the ammunition" which puts the shooter in a critical thinking mindset rather then a simple "follow the instructions" mindset.

With this in mind, having the pre-existing definition attached to a technique will help a shooter prioratize his/her actions based on the situation and appropriately "manage the ammunition" while keeping all the other variables in mind.

Lull.

lol

I "lulled" .....:D

spankaveli

11-03-09, 10:33

A lull? Was it Louis? :D

CoryCop25

11-03-09, 10:55

rob_s

11-03-09, 11:09

CoryCop25

11-03-09, 12:34

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

11-03-09, 14:06

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 ****ing 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....:D

rob_s

11-03-09, 14:23

ToddG

11-03-09, 15:17

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

11-03-09, 15:20

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

11-03-09, 15:28

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 "****ing 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

11-03-09, 15:33

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

11-03-09, 15:34

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 "****ing 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

11-03-09, 15:45

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

11-03-09, 16:00

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....:D

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

CoryCop25

11-03-09, 18:00

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

11-03-09, 20:54

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

11-04-09, 09:23

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.

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...)?

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?

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". :p 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

11-04-09, 09:40

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

11-04-09, 12:29

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.

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.

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

11-04-09, 18:21

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....:D

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

rob_s

11-04-09, 18:30

GrumpyM4

11-04-09, 19:43

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.....:)

rob_s

11-06-09, 08:29

I guess we'll have to wait for cory to come back. I just don't see him advocating moving magazines around in any of his posts. In fact, I don't see anyone in the three pages of this thread advocating that.

rob_s

11-06-09, 08:40

Question for those that instruct and have poo-poo'd the admin reload (whether RWR or TL)...

What do you have your students do while in class? Not what you advocate for the "street" since you're not teaching admin reloads as a tactic, but what you have them do while at the range under your supervision. I have heard two schools of thought on this and actually think that both have merit.

The first is that you have the students "manage their ammo", always keep rounds in the gun, and never let the gun run dry outside of exercises specific to the emergency reload or the transition to handgun. The idea here is that you're teaching people not to get tunnel vision, maintain their situational awareness, and remember to keep the gun topped up. This also has the added side benefit of keeping everyone moving with whatever drills are going on rather than randomly having students performing emergency reloads or transition to handgun in the middle of a drill that doesn't call for it.

The second is that you encourage students to run dry, no admin reloads outside of drills that call for it. The idea here is that the admin reload is exactly that, administrative, and has the luxury of being performed "off clock", so the skill is less critical. If you think you have time to swap magazines, the theory goes that you should have time to do it correctly. The emergency reload, however, is a skill that could be really ****ing important if you ever really needed it and the situation surrounding it's use is likely to be the most stressful of your life. So it's better to have the students practice those whenever possible, including in the middle of other drills, to build a skill that may become that critical. The fact that the drill may not call for it is a plus here and not a minus as the student is as surprised by the need as they would be if they were ever to encounter it "on the street".

Personally, I am not an instructor. I run a drills night and I try to expose our shooters to things that I have picked up from actual instructors or theories that I have encountered in books and on the web. So as is typical for most of our sessions I demonstrate both of the above, go over the benefits of each as listed above, and then typically let the shooters decide for themselves. Just like I do with stance, weaver vs. iso, placement of the support hand, etc. We show several techniques, discuss the relative merits and shortcomings of each, get practice using both in dynamic situations, and then let the shooters make up their own mind as to what works best for them. If they encounter those shortcomings in use we'll let them struggle through it and then point it out and discuss further. Sometimes we'll even create situations that induce those shortcomings. :D

So, all that rambling aside, in a class setting do you the first, the second, or pretty much what I do which is to show both and let the student decide for themselves?

CoryCop25

11-06-09, 09:16

This

The first is that you have the students "manage their ammo", always keep rounds in the gun, and never let the gun run dry outside of exercises specific to the emergency reload or the transition to handgun. The idea here is that you're teaching people not to get tunnel vision, maintain their situational awareness, and remember to keep the gun topped up. This also has the added side benefit of keeping everyone moving with whatever drills are going on rather than randomly having students performing emergency reloads or transition to handgun in the middle of a drill that doesn't call for it.

We carry two mags on our duty rigs for the handgun and few carry ONE spare AR mag (usually a 20 rounder). There is too much stuff to carry around anyway on our belts to have much more ammo. The reason for the "BUMP" is to pull the mag from the BOTTOM pouch, or the SECOND mag pouch (if running vertically) is solely because in an EMERGENCY situation, you are going to go to the top or first mag pouch just by nature. So if you tac load from the bottom or rear pouch and then run that mag dry, you will now top off with a full mag. In an emergency reload situation you do not have time to think, and most likely won't anyway, about where to pull the next magazine from.

Example.... You conduct a traffic stop. The driver exits and begins shooting. You engage and put the driver down while moving to cover at the same time. You are behind cover (engine block, mail box on the corner, whatever) you reach for the bottom pouch and top off your pistol and replace the half spent mag in the bottom pouch (all one step because you have time, cover or concealment). You then approach the vehicle to check for other occupants. They begin shooting at you and you run your pistol dry. You will, by instinct from training, strip your top mag out while simultaneously discarding your empty mag from the pistol.

rob_s

11-06-09, 09:20

Example.... You conduct a traffic stop. The driver exits and begins shooting. You engage and put the driver down while moving to cover at the same time. You are behind cover (engine block, mail box on the corner, whatever) you reach for the bottom pouch and top off your pistol and replace the half spent mag in the bottom pouch (all one step because you have time, cover or concealment). You then approach the vehicle to check for other occupants. They begin shooting at you and you run your pistol dry. You will, by instinct from training, strip your top mag out while simultaneously discarding your empty mag from the pistol.

I'm glad you re-posted. I think this makes it clear that, while you are calling it "bumping", you're not actually re-positioning magazines on the belt. You're using the right magazine on the belt for the type of reload you're conducting at that moment.

CoryCop25

11-06-09, 09:28

I think if you were in an urban warfare situation and were carrying 8 primary mags and 4 secondary mags and you followed the same basic steps as I described and had a short skirmish with the enemy and secured the area you might have a few minutes to re-set your gear for optimum performance when you do not have the luxury to replenish your magazine and ammunition supply. In the civilian world where you have a limited supply of ammunition for everyday carry, it's not necessary because of limited amounts of ammo and pouches. Keep the movements and steps to a minimum.

The_War_Wagon

11-06-09, 10:08

FWIW, when I am in a mentor role concerning carbines I don't even use the terms "tactical reload", "reload with retention", "speed reload" or anything else. I stress the concept of "managing ammunition." I do my best to impart the idea of not getting wrapped up in particulars, but to simply actively manage the ammunition on the gun.

I've been thinking about this topic the past few days, and how best to respond. As a newbie, greatly appreciative of the time TK spent with me, I think one discovers QUICKLY during instruction, exactly how much you DON'T know about defensive firearm deployment. EVEN practicing mag changes on the range for the FIRST time - with no threats or pressure - one discovers just how easily fumbling a mag can be!

BEING a newb, we haven't even COVERED yet, topics such as ammo management, reloading empty mags during a lull in the conflict, and the like. NOT that such topics aren't IMPORTANT, but rather, it's akin to telling a 15 year old in driver's ed, how best to approach the tunnel turn at Pocono at 180mph. The kid doesn't even know where his turn signals are yet, and you're trying to get him ready to tackle NASCAR?

I even learned from TK during our training day, the proper way to stage your gear (have mags in pouches turned the 'right' way, so when you pull them out, they're ready to be employed without a lot of one-handed turning/fumbling), something that makes PERFECT sense, but quite honestly, I'd never considered (as a lowly, lowly, civilian, I don't get a LOT of chances to practice such things in MY line of work... :o) before.

Color it "crawling before walking" I think, but while firearm management ain't rocket surgery, there are definite steps to be followed, particularly for newbies. Ammo management instruction seems a Day 2 priority at best. YMMV.

GrumpyM4

11-06-09, 10:42

Color it "crawling before walking" I think, but while firearm management ain't rocket surgery, there are definite steps to be followed, particularly for newbies. Ammo management instruction seems a Day 2 priority at best. YMMV.

At risk of being narcissistic and breaching internet protocol, I will quote myself from earlier in the thread.......

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.

Time and practice and continually challenging your mindset, is all it takes.

I'm a Civ myself, but that doesn't stop me from trying to learn as much as I can and continually better my performance, technique, and abilities based on my beliefs and level of understanding.

Jay Cunningham

11-06-09, 11:10

I wanted to go back and address the original post:

During my first class three years ago, we were taught that if there is a need to "top off" a pistol during a "lull" in a gunfight, use a "reload with retention" technique - where a partially empty magazine is removed and stowed. A fresh magazine is then draw and loaded into the pistol. Some benefits to this technique: It's easier to manipulate one magazine at a time, especially under stress. The motion for speed load and "tactical load" are the same. There is also the notion that the original "tac reload" - where you hold both magazines in support hand - dates back to early Gunsite days of expensive 1911 magazines and gravel surface.
This is what I understand to be a classic Reload with Retention. I had an instructor relate a story that guys were involved in gunfights down South in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There was about 3 feet of goo and if you dropped a magazine into it, it was gone.

However, there are still trainers that advocate - sometimes with strong words - the use of classical "tac load" - where you retrieve a fully loaded magazine first, then you remove a partially full magazine and insert the full magazine into the pistol. The common theme is that your pistol is out of the fight for a shorter duration since you are not going from your waist or wherever the spare magazine is. However, given that juggling two magazines by the magwell is a rather tricky endeavor, I don't think it's much of a win over reload with retention. The only argument for "tac load" I heard that I buy is this: In a fluid situation you may loose track of how many spare magazines you have. So if you do a reload with retention, and stow your partially loaded magazine somewhere inaccesible ( behind your shirt, etc) and then, as you go to retrieve the fully loaded magazine, it's not there. You are in deep doodoo.
I agree with your definition of the Tac Load. Basically, with the RWR you are topping off at the pouch (or pocket) and with the Tac Load you are topping off at the gun. I also agree that a Tac Load is more positive in that you *know* you have a good magazine to top off with. Not to mention minimizing the time that a magazine is out of the pistol for those with magazine disconnects.

Still, I am more in favor of "reload with retention" technique. I wonder what other people's thoughts and techniques are.
I think that we should allow ourselves a flexible response. The instructor in the top example advocates a RWR under all circumstances - even during a slide lock in a gunfight. His reasoning? The Katrina example and the Blackhawk Down example, where guys were dropping their mags all over Mogadishu and began to run out of them (supposedly). Interesting anecdotes, but this guy bases his entire training around this lowest common denominator. I don't agree with this. Why must we be wed to one way of doing things?

Why are we doing what we're doing? Essentially, all reloads except for the Emergency Reload (slidelock) are administrative in nature, i.e. they are a choice.

When you pickup your pistol off the nightstand you load it, perform a LCV, ensure that the mag is seated and the slide is in battery, then you holster. This is in a safe environment, with no pressure whatsoever.

A Speed Reload (gamer or IPSC reload) is choosing to dump a partial mag from your pistol in order to get a full mag in there. Understandable during competition, but seems like a bad idea in real life.

RWR and Tac Loads are both choices. Both of these should be performed with a low risk of a new immediate threat, preferably behind cover. Out of the two my preference generally is for the Tac Load because you get the mag into your hand first. I personally don't think the "down time" of the gun is really affected - that is, unless you go fumbling around looking for a mag that was *supposed to be there*.

Pistols and ARs make this easy. Try performing a Tac Load with an AK and tell me how that goes. It can be done with lots of practice, and devices such as MagPuls can make it easier. But due to the nature of the gun (rock and lock magazine) the RWR makes a lot more sense. Ammunition management on an AK is crucial due to the lack of a BHO feature... you don't want to get that click noise when you want a bang noise. There are also pistols out there, like first gen Glocks and some other Euro-weenie pistols where you need to pull the magazine out of the well. It might make more sense to do a RWR for these. See? A flexible response.

So... what does all this mean? Well, I think it means if you are switched-on enough to even consider "topping off your gun" after a real-life shooting or gunfight, you are so far ahead of the power curve that the particulars probably don't matter - except to us training junkies. This is why, after demonstrating and discussing various techniques with a newer shooter, I tend to simply remind them to "manage their ammo."

;)

Jay Cunningham

11-06-09, 11:27

Since we started talking about staging ammunition as a side conversation, I wanted to point out that many times there is just going to be a guy with one in his pistol and one on his hip. This is real life with Joe Six-Pack. Some guys carry two spares I suppose (especially 1911 guys) but otherwise all this staging ammo and tac loading stuff is pretty much relegated to guys who carry guns for a living. Joe Six-Pack has the choice whether or not to do it in a shooting school... it's usually a good idea.

Know thyself and know the needs of thy student. :cool:

BLACK LION

11-10-09, 14:02

I am on the fence.

For "tactical reloads" I try both ways but indexing a fresh mag first is more natural and consistent for me. Either way its a "time fumble"...
Honestly, if I am at a 2 way range I would speed reload. Pistol mags are too small to have to fiddle with doing tactical relaods under stress.
I just hit the mag release and flick the grip inward to toss the mag(similar to what Costa does on his AR speed reloads)and by that time a fresh one is indexed and ready to insert. I noticed the flick helps to ensure the mag drops wether its empty or still has a couple left. I noticed that just hitting the button and expecting gravity to work for me is just asking for trouble.

As far as rotating or shifting mags....If the "fight" has lasted long enough for me to have to go back to almost expended mags, I am asking for trouble. Rather than rummaging through mags that have 1 or 2 or 3 cartridges in them and hoping to get back into the fight. I should probably be picking up the dead BG's guns and expending them first. All that time spent shifting things around could be expended on moving and/or returning fire however I can. At least that is the mindset I conceive. One mind any tool. I shouldnt be so stuck up on my own firearm that I negate other opportunities to throw lead in return. My gun, thier gun it makes no difference.

An expended mag is not worth my life, limb or that of ay one else. If it is safe to drop a mag and tuck it back or drop in a dump pouch to be reloaded later the its all gravy. But if time and life do not permit, its hitting the deck and I am moving on. Thats why I have plenty of mags.

What do I know though, I am just a regular "joe" that has only simulated "the actual thing". Take my opinion as such, if you will.

BLACK LION

11-10-09, 14:15

I wanted to go back and address the original post:

This is what I understand to be a classic Reload with Retention. I had an instructor relate a story that guys were involved in gunfights down South in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There was about 3 feet of goo and if you dropped a magazine into it, it was gone.

I agree with your definition of the Tac Load. Basically, with the RWR you are topping off at the pouch (or pocket) and with the Tac Load you are topping off at the gun. I also agree that a Tac Load is more positive in that you *know* you have a good magazine to top off with. Not to mention minimizing the time that a magazine is out of the pistol for those with magazine disconnects.

I think that we should allow ourselves a flexible response. The instructor in the top example advocates a RWR under all circumstances - even during a slide lock in a gunfight. His reasoning? The Katrina example and the Blackhawk Down example, where guys were dropping their mags all over Mogadishu and began to run out of them (supposedly). Interesting anecdotes, but this guy bases his entire training around this lowest common denominator. I don't agree with this. Why must we be wed to one way of doing things?

Why are we doing what we're doing? Essentially, all reloads except for the Emergency Reload (slidelock) are administrative in nature, i.e. they are a choice.

When you pickup your pistol off the nightstand you load it, perform a LCV, ensure that the mag is seated and the slide is in battery, then you holster. This is in a safe environment, with no pressure whatsoever.

A Speed Reload (gamer or IPSC reload) is choosing to dump a partial mag from your pistol in order to get a full mag in there. Understandable during competition, but seems like a bad idea in real life.

RWR and Tac Loads are both choices. Both of these should be performed with a low risk of a new immediate threat, preferably behind cover. Out of the two my preference generally is for the Tac Load because you get the mag into your hand first. I personally don't think the "down time" of the gun is really affected - that is, unless you go fumbling around looking for a mag that was *supposed to be there*.

Pistols and ARs make this easy. Try performing a Tac Load with an AK and tell me how that goes. It can be done with lots of practice, and devices such as MagPuls can make it easier. But due to the nature of the gun (rock and lock magazine) the RWR makes a lot more sense. Ammunition management on an AK is crucial due to the lack of a BHO feature... you don't want to get that click noise when you want a bang noise. There are also pistols out there, like first gen Glocks and some other Euro-weenie pistols where you need to pull the magazine out of the well. It might make more sense to do a RWR for these. See? A flexible response.

So... what does all this mean? Well, I think it means if you are switched-on enough to even consider "topping off your gun" after a real-life shooting or gunfight, you are so far ahead of the power curve that the particulars probably don't matter - except to us training junkies. This is why, after demonstrating and discussing various techniques with a newer shooter, I tend to simply remind them to "manage their ammo."

;)

Good post T_K BTW.... makes allot of sense.