View Full Version : The NEW Law Enforcement Shooting Method...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/bfips/online/old1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/bfips/online/old2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/bfips/online/old3.jpg
To quote another 80's paradigm "Learn it, Know it, Live it."
:D
randyman_ar
08-28-11, 22:29
Love the hand in pocket stance.
Mauser KAR98K
08-28-11, 22:36
The bottom photo looks like Florida Highway Patrol.
The bottom photo looks like Florida Highway Patrol.
i miss those Banana Split notchbacks!
Suwannee Tim
08-29-11, 09:39
The bottom photo looks like Florida Highway Patrol.
It does look like FHP, the livery and the uniform but that hair! In the '80s FHP required Troopers to keep their hair shorter than Marines. And no mustache. Trooper would have been reprimanded for even thinking about a mustache. My father almost hired on with FHP until they found out he was born in Chicago and raised in Ohio. They didn't hire Yankees.
Love the hand in pocket stance.
That's a pretty standard Bullseye match stance. How else are your guys going to win Bullseye matches?
Is that a chick behind the firing line? If so, she must have been one of the first females in FHP.
We'll probably never know how many Officers were ever killed or wounded...Or just missed hitting someone shooting at them, resulting in an escape where an innocent was harmed, because of those tactics and "Bullseye competition" mindset.
That silly old crap pictured there is why everyone here today owes a dept of thanks to the early work of Jeff Cooper and his peers for graveling the dirt road that others after them continued to pave.
That said those are some cool old pics huh? I always look forward to steyrAUG's posts due to these trips in the way back machine.
theblackknight
08-29-11, 16:58
Love the hand in pocket stance.
I prefer hand on belt buckle, but still, you feel like a ****in pimp. Dont forget to dump the brass in your pocket.
RogerinTPA
08-29-11, 17:12
That is a typical competition style shooting position...for score.
That is a typical competition style shooting position...for score.
You're right it is. The problem I saw when initially getting into the work force was that Officers very rarely ever distinguished between combat and bullseye. Sure the Officers that I knew that were the best shots 15 and 20 years ago were great. But they were great bullseye shooters and time and time again I would see them take exactly the stance depicted above in street encounters.
That was all because of the dept. having a pistol team that competed, and took many trophies in, KPOA (Kansas Police Officer's Association.) Now all they care about is golf around here.
The only way it went away, was when they retired. Now no one here shoots or even thinks about bullseye related competition, accordingly we haven't seen those stances in a long time.
Mauser KAR98K
08-29-11, 19:06
Here's winking at you, partner. (First photo).
Where every the third shot is from, it is deep south, considering the building on blocks. The paint skim and the way the trooper decal is, it certainly looks like FHP. And they did have lots of 5.0 mustangs.
RogerinTPA
08-29-11, 20:07
You're right it is. The problem I saw when initially getting into the work force was that Officers very rarely ever distinguished between combat and bullseye. Sure the Officers that I knew that were the best shots 15 and 20 years ago were great. But they were great bullseye shooters and time and time again I would see them take exactly the stance depicted above in street encounters.
That was all because of the dept. having a pistol team that competed, and took many trophies in, KPOA (Kansas Police Officer's Association.) Now all they care about is golf around here.
The only way it went away, was when they retired. Now no one here shoots or even thinks about bullseye related competition, accordingly we haven't seen those stances in a long time.
Glad to here that. Some folks remain in the dogma of the past, regardless of how effed up it may be for what ever reason. Bullseye shooting is great for practicing the fundamentals, which I practice, before doing pistol drills, but with the modern Isosceles I normally shoot with. Folks who carry guns for a living should have an evolutionary mindset so as to not be trapped or killed with that past institutionalized BS.
Suwannee Tim
08-29-11, 20:42
.....Some folks remain in the dogma of the past.....
Most folks, in fact, the vast majority will cling to conventional wisdom and some of these folks will be not just neutral but hostile to new ideas, even hostile to inconvenient questions. I know this from personal experience as I have on a number of occasions questioned the "dogma of the past" and experienced the hostility of the entrenched interests. I advise folks to never love something that can't love them back. Particularly one should not become emotionally invested in an idea or a practice.
Most folks, in fact, the vast majority will cling to conventional wisdom and some of these folks will be not just neutral but hostile to new ideas, even hostile to inconvenient questions. I know this from personal experience as I have on a number of occasions questioned the "dogma of the past" and experienced the hostility of the entrenched interests. I advise folks to never love something that can't love them back. Particularly one should not become emotionally invested in an idea or a practice.
While I wouldn't advocate any of the above as preferred for combat, keep in mind that once upon a time this was the "approved method."
Back then many of us "young guys" were disciples of LFI and the various Weaver and Chapman techniques. But in our group was an old timer Sheriff who ran courses with the old "crouch and shoot" FBI method from the 30s.
Being as how our method was more efficient that Sheriff never won the top score in any drills but he still managed to do quite well, and shot as well or better than some using the new methods. This is of course due to the fact that he had probably been shooting for more than 40 years and could do things like shoot a coin in the air (which is something none of us could do).
Also he was an experienced gunfighter who had been in quite a few shootouts with bad guys and put more than a few into the ground with his old Colt Python. So while I was confident that my "new method" was more efficient, I never made the mistake of believing I was more skilled than that old Sheriff. And I'd sure hate to have actually gotten into a gun fight with him regardless of having advantages like a high capacity semi auto and a new method.
Course even he would tell you not to stand out there like in the above photos and get shot. He was more of a shoot and move kinda guy.
What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofa8OOxXwdI)
What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofa8OOxXwdI)
The goddamn Germans got nothing to do with it!
Guys look at pictures from the 60's and think about how stupid people looked doing that. How ineffective those thehniques are etc.
Forty years from now, someone will probably be doing the exact same thing to what is being taught now. What you see in those pictures was just as cutting edge as the shit being taught now.
Jeff Cooper didn't reinvent the wheel. Those techniques were in play long before Leatherslap and Big Bear Moutain.
Most, pretty much all, modern LEO firearms training follows the practices of "The Modern Technique", and really doesn't reflect the reality, level of training and mindset, of the average police officer on the average police department with declining budgets and appalling training time.
Most pics academies teach one to be able to pass a qualification test. For that they succeed.
Forty years from now, someone will probably be doing the exact same thing to what is being taught now. What you see in those pictures was just as cutting edge as the shit being taught now.
Doubt it. What is being taught now is fundamentals of speed and accuracy brought from competition shooting (forms of competition that stress speed and accuracy) into elite military organizations and then used in combat to kill a bunch of bad guys. And then that experience brought back to inform the new batch of competition/self defense/law enforcement/military shooters.
I am sure some things will change incrementally, but I doubt we see the kind of radical changes we saw in the 20th century that make for these funny pictures. We will still be humans with roughly the same size and shape bodies and there are only so many ways to do things efficiently WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY. And a more scientific approach and lots of competition has resulted in pretty efficient ways to run a pistol and a rifle in the United States and world wide.
Did you get that from a Magpul DVD?
Every latest and greatest makes the one prior to it look stupid. Just don't forget that there was one before. There will be one after.
The Modern Technique isn't some kind of gospel which changed the shooting world. Jack Weaver didn't invent something new, he put it on paper and refined it.
The world isn't all "elite military units" and SWAT guys. The vast majority don't fit into those roles. Look at any police department and you'll find guys who shoot maybe once a year, at qualification. They are usually the same guy who is overweight and can't iron or tuck in his/her shirt.
People who seek out training and shoot on their own understand that shooting is a discipline, just like being physically fit. You can't sit on a couch for a year then get up and run a six minute mile, it doesn't work that way. But there are plenty of people who carry guns for a living that do just that.
Just as the martial arts has different disciplines, Karate, Judo etc, there are different disciplines to shooting. Don't get wrapped up thinking what is being taught is the best way.
There needs to be a combination of techniques which reflect the actual reality of the situation at hand. Sort of a mixed martial arts of shooting. But more training means more money and time, and new ideas require a big push.
Modern firearms training doesn't reflect reality for the vast majority of shooters any more now than it did back then. People just simply don't have the level of discipline to preform those functions under stress. I would say that may not apply to many people on this forum. Gun enthusiasts are a different breed.
Suwannee Tim
08-30-11, 05:00
.......Forty years from now, someone will probably be doing the exact same thing to what is being taught now.......
Indeed. There are folks who are so certain they have achieved ultimate knowledge and skill that they become hostile and defensive when challenged or even questioned.
Yep, 40 years from now EVERYONE will be walking rounds into a target, firing as they draw.
No one will make fun of the visionary head of Cold Steel then!!!!
Forty years from now, someone will probably be doing the exact same thing to what is being taught now. What you see in those pictures was just as cutting edge as the shit being taught now.
Jeff Cooper didn't reinvent the wheel. Those techniques were in play long before Leatherslap and Big Bear Moutain.
I can't say what someone will be doing forty years from now. But I bet it does start out with a lot of what's being taught today as foundation. To compare the examples in the pictures here to todays modern handgun combat training is utterly ridiculous. Those techniques may have been cutting edge in days past but in no way are they just as cutting edge as today's practices.
I will note that an interesting thing is a lot of today's pistol craft comes from gamers, thumbs forward, isosceles, etc. and that's where those old techniques came from as well. Gamers shooting bullseye.
Jeff Cooper may not have invented anything he taught. But he did refine it, define it, and bring it to the worlds attention. So I agree with your Jack Weaver statements.
I'm not sure why modern firearms training doesn't doesn't reflect reality today for most?
You can find pics from WWII of guys shooting "Weaver"...before it was invented.
I'm not sure why modern firearms training doesn't doesn't reflect reality today for most?
Your average person doesn't have the dicipline to find, acquire, and align the sights of a pistol on a target while slowly pressing the trigger to the rear given a life and death encounter. Especially in a reactive gunfight.
It takes a huge amount of practice and/or visulization to be able to pull that off. Its the six minute mile of the shooting world. You got to work for it.
They don't have that dicipline because of a lack of mindset, training, avaibility of range time and ammo etc. Some just don't want to get better because they think they got it down.
Look into flash sight picture and point shooting. I'm not a huge fan of either of these by themselves, but when fused with other techniques they are invaluable. I'd like to see a program where all of these are introduced.
Its funny how many people have heard of Jeff Cooper, but couldn't tell you who Rex Applegate is. Most of the stuff I've heard about Cooper don't involve shooting, but more mindset. I'm not discounting his work by any means, just its over use in LEO training and culture.
In Kelly McCann's video Inside the Crucible he gives a lecture about gun fighting. Its nothing short of brilliant and I would encourage anyone and everyone to watch it. The rest of the videos in the series are a bit dated, but the lecture one is great.
Ok, I see the point you're making, but that's no fault or invalidation of any training. The scenario you're describing rests solely on the shoulders of the individual gun owner that doesn't seek out that training.
I'm very well aware of who Rex Applegate was as well as William E. Fairbairn and Eric Sykes. I've always appreciated the history I've read on them since a kid.
I'm actually not that big of a Cooper fan. While I appreciate his early work and dedication, over time he stagnated and never advanced beyond what he perceived to be the epitome of fighting arts. This all came under discussion in another thread here where some thought Cooper was being bashed. He was not.
Of what you said you discount on Cooper, Mindset evolution, I think is actually some of his most valid work. Mindset and preparedness are the entire foundation of survival in all situations.
While I appreciate his early work and dedication, over time he stagnated and never advanced beyond what he perceived to be the epitome of fighting arts. This all came under discussion in another thread here where some thought Cooper was being bashed. He was not.
Could it be that after decades of developed muscle memory he simply decided that his skill set was "effective enough" and that he wasn't willing to scrap it all to start over from square one in an effort to build it all up to an "effective enough" level with a new method?
I guarantee in 20 years you guys will be being corrected by some young guy because you are not using the "current method" and he will be suggesting that your entire skill set is basically obsolete.
The reality is that "effective" is "effective" and new methods are more the result of changes in equipment and weapon design than anything exclusively combat related.
You can grab a lot of "new method" guys from any time period including the present and most of them would probably still get killed if you dropped them on a street against guys like John Hardin, Bill Hickok or Tom Horn.
What bothers me about Cooper isn't so much his teachings, it's the over permeation in LEO training. To create a well rounded student, you can't be restricted to one discipline. That is exactly what is going on.
I do agree that the failure of shooters to seek out training is at their own peril, we can't ignore that this is going on. Training has to reflect the current skillset and future training of the student. If a student has a set number of training hours at the academy, and is expected to carry a weapon, and receives only a minimal amount of training pas that, it's by luck he or she survives a gunfight.
We train people to use the sights, sharp focus on the front, rear blurry target blurry...but guys simply are not doing it. Hit percentages of cops are only marginally better than bad guys, and in all reality are probably equal to. This is a huge gap between what is taught and what is actually going on.
Given this reality, the training has to reflect that demand. If a certian technique takes too many hours to perfect, given the training tempo, it's probably not the right one to teach.
I didn't know anything about formal firearms instruction before the academy. I was shocked to find out how much there was beyond what I was taught and how narrowed the training really was.
Did you get that from a Magpul DVD?
No.
The Modern Technique isn't some kind of gospel which changed the shooting world. Jack Weaver didn't invent something new, he put it on paper and refined it.
I am not an adherent of the Modern Technique. My understanding is that Cooper got really dogmatic as time went on and rejected much of the IPSC competition based techniques that helped to form the current "state of the art" as it is being called here as gamey.
I can't say what someone will be doing forty years from now. But I bet it does start out with a lot of what's being taught today as foundation. To compare the examples in the pictures here to todays modern handgun combat training is utterly ridiculous.
Agreed. The amount of science and competition of ideas/methods seems to have put things on a much more solid basis. To attempt to deny that by pointing to techniques based in pure marksmanship competition or things from ww2 when the 1911 had tiny sights is actually funny, IMO.
Could it be that after decades of developed muscle memory he simply decided that his skill set was "effective enough" and that he wasn't willing to scrap it all to start over from square one in an effort to build it all up to an "effective enough" level with a new method?
As a teacher I don't think you can entrenched to that degree and be of maximum benefit to your students. In this case certain ways of doing things are being proven faster and more efficient in LOTS of competition and combat.
What bothers me about Cooper isn't so much his teachings, it's the over permeation in LEO training. To create a well rounded student, you can't be restricted to one discipline. That is exactly what is going on.
In that case we have no disagreement.
People who seek out training and shoot on their own understand that shooting is a discipline, just like being physically fit. You can't sit on a couch for a year then get up and run a six minute mile, it doesn't work that way
+1...Awesome
The reality is that "effective" is "effective" and new methods are more the result of changes in equipment and weapon design than anything exclusively combat related.
you're right, what do guys like Larry Vickers and Kyle Lamb know about combat?
Effective is effective right up until one is challenged and proved to be inneffective at which point the choice is either to evolve or make excuses. Most choose excuses.
you're right, what do guys like Larry Vickers and Kyle Lamb know about combat?
Effective is effective right up until one is challenged and proved to be inneffective at which point the choice is either to evolve or make excuses. Most choose excuses.
And nobody said that.
What I said again, for the people who are just trying to create an argument, is that the fact that Kyle Lamb and Larry Vickers are extremely talented gunfighters doesn't suddenly mean guys like Cooper and Weaver suddenly don't know anything.
When it comes to certain things like bullseye shooting or IDPA there are specific techniques that are best for those things. But when it comes to shooting at people who are shooting back at you your foot being at 3 o'clock rather than 2 o'clock isn't quite as critical as a lot of more important things.
And if you take Larry Vickers back in time to 1980 guess what...he suddenly doesn't become an incompetent moron who doesn't know how to fight and anyone who says otherwise either just wants to start an argument (you) or really hasn't given it much thought.
And ironically, in about 20 years when all the kids are doing it a "new way" you will still be an effective shooter. This is because you understand certain principles like using sights, holding on target and hitting that target. It won't matter what new whiz bang method of doing those basic things they come up with, you will still be competent. Now you might not score in the top 3 but that doesn't mean you suddenly no longer know a damn thing about anything and that is the only point I ever made.
The reality is that "effective" is "effective" and new methods are more the result of changes in equipment and weapon design than anything exclusively combat related.
LE training is by far and away incident driven. Something happens, and everyone scrambles to find a way to train the new batch to overcome that situation.
LE training is by far and away incident driven. Something happens, and everyone scrambles to find a way to train the new batch to overcome that situation.
There is of course much truth to that, I remember the FBI making huge changes after the 1986 Miami Shootout.
But I meant things like squared up body posture being the result of widespread use of body armor and things like that.
I never meant to imply that Cooper, Weaver, or anyone else of that period didn't know what they were doing or were ineffective. I've always tried my best to give them their credit due. If what I said got misdirected I apologize.
There is probably a lot right in what was said regarding what worked for Cooper worked for Cooper and he saw no reason to change. But my point was that he simply discarded a lot that came after his peak. And he did have a hell of a good peak in his training career.
I think the best way I can give this some validation is his thoughts on handguns. We all know that he was a huge proponent of the 1911 (A pistol I do love, and have always owned some example of.) But he turned his nose up at much that wasn't a 1911. How many times I saw him quoted as calling DA autos "Crunchentickers" I couldn't begin to remember. To him every advancing auto was still a Walther P38 hastily put together during war time.
The crunchenticker thing carries over today with the attitude of a lot of people that are 1911 proponents. That's why we have people that insist on hating a Glock because "it's plastic" or insist on calling it a "Glunk" or a "Glop".
Lots of things work well whether people accept that they do or not. And things that don't (hopefully) get discarded over time.
As a teacher I don't think you can entrenched to that degree and be of maximum benefit to your students. In this case certain ways of doing things are being proven faster and more efficient in LOTS of competition and combat.
Fair enough. I was just trying to offer a perspective and possible explanation.
I never meant to imply that Cooper, Weaver, or anyone else of that period didn't know what they were doing or were ineffective. I've always tried my best to give them their credit due. If what I said got misdirected I apologize.
There is probably a lot right in what was said regarding what worked for Cooper worked for Cooper and he saw no reason to change. But my point was that he simply discarded a lot that came after his peak. And he did have a hell of a good peak in his training career.
I think the best way I can give this some validation is his thoughts on handguns. We all know that he was a huge proponent of the 1911 (A pistol I do love, and have always owned some example of.) But he turned his nose up at much that wasn't a 1911. How many times I saw him quoted as calling DA autos "Crunchentickers" I couldn't begin to remember. To him every advancing auto was still a Walther P38 hastily put together during war time.
The crunchenticker thing carries over today with the attitude of a lot of people that are 1911 proponents. That's why we have people that insist on hating a Glock because "it's plastic" or insist on calling it a "Glunk" or a "Glop".
Lots of things work well whether people accept that they do or not. And things that don't (hopefully) get discarded over time.
And I have no problem with any of that. I was mostly addressing the notion that everything that came before X is now obsolete simply because X exists. My only point is a new "improved" method doesn't automatically make everything else "bad."
Fair enough. I was just trying to offer a perspective and possible explanation.
And I have no problem with any of that. I was mostly addressing the notion that everything that came before X is now obsolete simply because X exists. My only point is a new "improved" method doesn't automatically make everything else "bad."
No, they make them not-as-good. As evidenced over and over again by those that cling to not-as-good and then excuse their poor performance with various nonsense post-facto.
Go try to high-jump like they did before Fosbury and see where that gets you.
No, they make them not-as-good. As evidenced over and over again by those that cling to not-as-good and then excuse their poor performance with various nonsense post-facto.
Go try to high-jump like they did before Fosbury and see where that gets you.
A high jump, much like specific shooting sports, are not the same as combat. Don't take my word for it, go ask Vickers or Kyle Lamb.
Or better yet, just realize that only YOU know the true way and the rest of us mere mortals can never possibly hope to understand the level of enlightenment you have achieved. You should pity us.
A high jump, much like specific shooting sports, are not the same as combat. Don't take my word for it, go ask Vickers or Kyle Lamb.
Or better yet, just realize that only YOU know the true way and the rest of us mere mortals can never possibly hope to understand the level of enlightenment you have achieved. You should pity us.
I do pity you, but that's not why. :lol:
What you seem to often forget is that I and many others in this area have actually WATCHED YOU SHOOT, which tends to put holes in this internet persona that you've crafted over the years. You can cling to the old ways all you want but when it doesn't work as well as the new ways as evidenced on the range and then you simply dismiss them as "I'm a fighter not a competitor" it just doesn't hold water. But it's your delusion, feel free to live it out however you like.
:dance3:
What you seem to often forget is that I and many others in this area have actually WATCHED YOU SHOOT, which tends to put holes in this internet persona that you've crafted over the years. You can cling to the old ways all you want but when it doesn't work as well as the new ways as evidenced on the range and then you simply dismiss them as "I'm a fighter not a competitor" it just doesn't hold water. But it's your delusion, feel free to live it out however you like.
:dance3:
Yeah, twice. three times?
And in those times my speed and accuracy were in the mid ranges for the group. If you go check, my main problems were procedural and this was a result of a deliberate effort to not "pre learn" the course. So you have seen me shoot, a few times. And I'm more than satisfied with the time and accuracy even if I never broke the top 5.
More to the point, my internet persona is not one of a person who claims he can show up and out shoot everyone in a shooting contest. I never claimed to be the best at this or that. I think the closest thing to a boast I've ever said is that I feel I shoot competently.
You also seem to be confused about something else, I don't claim to be a gun fighter. I have no combat experience. But I hold those sources as more significant than those who shoot in competition.
I'd explain more but you really aren't interested in hearing what I'm trying to say or you would have gotten it when I explained it the first time. You are interested in correcting all those who you don't feel "measure up" to your standard.
Well since Rob has raised the issue of competency, let's stop talking and just take a look.
Here is a common Jedi master at Robs FDCC running a drill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HR_NBOtcD0
Notice the flawless posture and gun handling (especially with the handgun) that lets this tactical yellow shooter easily outclass shooters such as myself.
Here is me running the same exact drill with my inferior technique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRAZJ2yhjhs
Now I'm not saying I'm the fastest gun in the west, I'm not saying I'm a crack shoot who hits gnats at 100 yards, but I can effectively shoot the targets in front of me at what I consider an acceptable level of skill for my needs.
Shadow1198
08-31-11, 13:42
I think this is more a general matter of education vs. different personality types rather than due to any specific techniques. Some people learn to a certain point where they feel they've learned all they need/want to. Others continue learning until the day they die. As far as I'm concerned, the learning never stops, at least it never should. 20 years from now there will probably have been a whole host of new techniques, tactics, etc. that have come along to address the ever changing world and new situations. I look forward to learning, evaluating, and improving myself through them to be the best shooter I can be.
I think this is more a general matter of education vs. different personality types rather than due to any specific techniques. Some people learn to a certain point where they feel they've learned all they need/want to. Others continue learning until the day they die. As far as I'm concerned, the learning never stops, at least it never should. 20 years from now there will probably have been a whole host of new techniques, tactics, etc. that have come along to address the ever changing world and new situations. I look forward to learning, evaluating, and improving myself through them to be the best shooter I can be.
Did you watch the two videos I posted?
I learn new stuff all the time. I just don't find it necessary to completely abandon everything I already know just because some new technique comes along.
Additionally, the needs of a civilian shooter who at most will engage in personal defense scenario are far different from the guys who hunt Al Quida.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.