Times change, do you?

[SteyrAUG]

Steyr

I honestly got the same vibe from your post that Rob did. Your posts make it seem that you are extremely resistent to any kind of change and are quick to dismiss things (technique, tactic, gear, etc) simply because you've either been doing or using something else for X number of years.

There is nothing wrong with new/modern techniques so long as they work.

I just don't agree they are necessarily superior, especially if they are at odds with your current body dynamic. Basically I am rejecting the notion that suddenly I no longer know how to shoot because a bunch of guys started holding their guns differently. This is more or less what I am getting from guys like rob.

It is also basically him saying that he would be capable of defeating guys like Jack Weaver in his prime in a gun fight because rob has a newer way of holding and presenting his firearm.

And I am rejecting that notion because winning in a gunfight involves so much more than where you put your thumb or index finger of your support hand. And if you are primarily focused on those minor details, you are not paying attention to the important ones.

To put it simply, I do not believe that pressing a handgun out from my chest vs. drawing a straight line from my draw to presentation makes me a superior gun fighter. I think they are simply two different ways to accomplish the same thing.

That is the point I am trying to get across.

[SteyrAUG]

Delete

[John_Wayne777]

That is the point I am trying to get across.

The point they are trying to get across is that certain techniques are objectively, documentably, provably more efficient at getting an intended result, which is why Jack Weaver would never stand a chance of beating Dave Sevigny in a course of fire.

Gunfights have lots of other dynamics that enter the equation which can tilt the scales in favor of things other than the efficiency of weapon handling techniques. The confident individual with a surplus of aggression but inefficient handling techniques will probably perform better in a two way exchange of gunfire than the timid individual who has all the most efficient techniques down pat.

Pressing out from your chest vs. going in an arc from the holster to the target in presentation does not make you a better gunfighter. Done properly it allows you to break a precisely aimed shot quicker, which can mean the difference between dropping someone in their tracks or giving them the opportunity to fire another shot at you. This is why the people who do the most gunfighting at the highest levels tend to be very interested in refining and perfecting their TTPs. They've seen numerous examples of where someone else's "good enough" simply wouldn't have been.

Now if one isn't fast-roping out of helicopters in groups to go kill high-ranking Al Quaeda operatives, "good enough" can have somewhat broader parameters.

...but I've yet to hear anyone who survived a gunfight lament a surplus of skill or efficiency on the other side of it.

Red dots on carbines are provably more efficient and easier to use in a broad range of circumstances than irons. There's absolutely no questioning that at this point. From Kyle Defoor's blog:

Can you be as fast with irons as a red dot? Overall, no. In some cases at certain distances, yes, big comma- it is going to take ALOT of time to achieve this. Time that most people, unless you do what I do, don't have. Also, consider the cost of ammo to get to that level vs. the price of a quality red dot. With all that said, more later on the speed/distance thing.

Can irons do all that red dots can do if the shooter has the time to practice ALOT? No. Big period. While I was able to eventually keep up (after 3 months of hard practice) with irons with some seriously good shooters using red dots, there are a few spots where it is just not possible:

(1) shooting on the move to the weak side
(2) shooting any position that moves the sights away from
a traditional position- straight up, in front of your
face.
(3) Any low light situation
(4) Any situation where you are winded

http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/12/ir...most-year.html

Under ideal circumstances a shooter at Kyle's level can accomplish a particular feat with irons or a red dot...but there aren't many people who are at Kyle's level with a carbine and fights tend to happen in less than ideal circumstances, especially the low light bit. I can be just as fast and accurate on some drills with iron sights as I can be with a red dot. Those are drills, however...not a gunfight. They are generally static drills at known distances in a reasonable shooting stance. Change that to having to shoot from awkward positions at an 8" plate over 100 yards away and suddenly the gap between a red dot and iron sights becomes glaringly apparent:



For me the difference in having the red dot versus not having it is the difference between making that shot and not making that shot. I'm certainly not the world's foremost expert on the carbine, but as many of the guys who have shot with me will tell you I'm certainly not a slouch with it either. If I can't be just as good with irons as with a red dot, and if someone who is vastly more experienced and practiced than me like Mr. Defoor can't be just as good with irons as with a red dot, then it's pretty much a guarantee that buying a red dot is going to buy you capability you won't get without it.

[BC520]

Pressing out from your chest vs. going in an arc from the holster to the target in presentation does not make you a better gunfighter. Done properly it allows you to break a precisely aimed shot quicker, which can mean the difference between dropping someone in their tracks or giving them the opportunity to fire another shot at you.
That may be a reasoning in competition, but the main reason is because your muzzle is pointed directly at a threat sooner, and that trigger can be pulled on a close range threat much faster drawing a line in an arc to get your sights up to your eyeline

Red dots on carbines are provably more efficient and easier to use in a broad range of circumstances than irons. There's absolutely no questioning that at this point. What also isn't being mentioned by anyone is the distinct advantage of being able to see your sight in low light situations vs trying to pick up irons.

SteyrAug, as someone that may not have been shooting for quite 30 years, I can say I have been shooting for well over 20, almost that in a LEO capacity. I understand some of your points, but agree with others that you seem to be missing the boat somewhat yet. It's similar to the mindset of 1-Shot stops...

[SteyrAUG]

The point they are trying to get across is that certain techniques are objectively, documentably, provably more efficient at getting an intended result, which is why Jack Weaver would never stand a chance of beating Dave Sevigny in a course of fire.

That is fine. Two experts, who use different methods and one is the better shooter.

I guess my question is this, could rob and all the other guys being dismissive, using the new method, beat Jack Weaver in his prime? I certainly doubt it. And that is the point I am trying to make.

And as I have little interest in winning shooting contests, I believe my current methods suit me just fine. When I shoot with other shooters I am usually "squarely in the middle" and that is fine by me as I have no illusions of being Jerry Miculek.

I also have no aversions to the new techniques of methods. I took the time to learn and practice them. What I discovered in that time is they are counter productive to me. And I have not observed any significant advantage in the new hold that would motivate me to scrap 30 years of training and restart from square one.

I also don't believe a parallel foot position facing forward vs. a 3/4 open foot position has any bearing upon accurate shot placement or time. I think it is only a foot position and has more to do with if the shooter is going to be wearing body armor.

Other than those two things, I have picked up a lot of useful stuff recently.

I do tend to favor irons, but that is as much as not wanting to trust a battery to power my sight system (and I am aware of reflex sights) as anything else.

I am glad slings have generally returned to the 2 position variety, I remember when 3 positions was the "new method" and I never completely warmed up to that contraption. I have a bunch of them, but I tend to employ them as one would employ a 2 position.

[Magic_Salad0892]

DocGKR once wrote:

I would much rather go into battle with a guy who practices 15,000 rounds a year using generic 55 gr FMJ out of his old M16A1 than with some guy that has the latest state-of-the-art ammo and rifle, but only shoots 500 rounds a year.

I think this applies to training as well.

I'm don't care about the methods, as long as you can apply them efficiently.

I'd rather fight next to a guy using the old ''teacup'' grip who shoots 15,000 rounds a year, than a guy who ran a Magpul glass and preaches it to the book and knows it by heart but only shoots 500 rounds a year.

[popo198]

I have been an above average skill shooter all my life and thought I was good to go. I have consistently been able to win or place in competitions, but had not recieved any "real" training until a few years ago. It was not that I was close minded, just that I had not had the oportunity for top rate training. I would not consider a police academy or USMC boot camp top training, they teach you the basics of what you need to qualify and it is kept simple so that almost everyone has the basic skills to pass. All that changed for me a few summers back when I was able to take a class from Matt Burkette in '07, Kyle Defoor when he was with Blackwater in '09, and Ken Hackathorn in '10. I work for a PD that reserved firearms training for the SWAT heads and ass kissers only, a lonely patrolman was NEVER gonna sniff a top rate class. Fortunately, my lucky stars lined up and my eyes have been opened to outstanding world of "real firearms training". I keep an open mind and am willing to try new techniques and ideas and am constantly picking the brains of knowledgable persons from outside my own agency.

[xcibes]

Times change and so do I. For the longest time, I merely collected weapons and related junk. I am in a position now where my life and my family's life is at risk every day, and I realize it is time I for me to take my personal protection seriously. I have all of you to thank for this. Even when I do not, like the comments or the tone here I realize that it is not about hurt feelings and I take the time to consider what is said. I have decided to ditch most of what I have and concentrate on a few high quality firearms that I can depend on to help me protect myself and my family. From now on my firearms are tools, not toys. It may not seem like a big change but it is one of the hardest decsions I have made. I will let go of a lot of things that I have become attached to but I think I must. This is a big change and again, I have you all to thank. I have started improving my skills, and I will be taking a course which is something I never thought I would do. Change is good!

[mvelimir]

Remember - old man and treachery...!

I fought my war without red-dot sights, without any of the modern equipment, without modern way of carrying, presenting, slinging, pointing gun/rifle... hungry, exhausted and it served me well. I am alive (although with questionable and tricky health but there's nothing one could do something about that) and many of those who wished me harm are not.

That being said - I am amazed how much tactical mindset and equipment has improved in the last 20 years. Small things like weapon-mounted LED lights 20 years ago will make a world of difference in our typical engagements. Add to that gear and materials that wick moisture or are waterproof, boots that keep your feet dry and warm no matter what... Red-dot sights and ACOGs - man shit like that was like a Sci-Fi 20 years ago!

Anyway, with all this new stuff that I enjoy using and am trying to get accustom with so I can utilize all the benefits - I don't know if all that will always determine a winner in a gun fight. There's so much more to combat - most importantly who will crap his pants while bullets start flying in his direction and yet continue to shoot back and who will crap his pants and simply block out or start running away like a chicken.

[SteyrAUG]

Steyr

I honestly got the same vibe from your post that Rob did. Your posts make it seem that you are extremely resistent to any kind of change and are quick to dismiss things (technique, tactic, gear, etc) simply because you've either been doing or using something else for X number of years.

Well here is Rob and I running the exact same drill. He is using his new "expert" method and I am using my antiquated "old fart" method.

Keep in mind this is a course that was set up by Rob and at a range and club where he trains extensively. As Rob himself has stated many, many times I have not attended this club with any regularity and thus have much less familiarity with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HR_NBOtcD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRAZJ2yhjhs

Rob routinely promotes himself as a recognized expert and as a result is routinely dismissive of other posters (me on more than one occasion) who he has decided simply do NOT measure up to his standard of excellence.

Despite being more than a few years past my peak skill level and a couple steaks over my optimum fitness level I found all my targets the first time and completed the drill in less time. Of course Rob holds his gun "more correctly" so I guess that is what is really important.