Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety > Combative Applications of Competitve Techniques, Part I

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2008, 02:10 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
Excellent read! I'll bet you $100 some excerpts from that article go into some of my power points.
Yes, this Force Science News article and the Handguns Magazine article of Gunfighting Analyses by retired Sheriff’s Lieutenant Dave Spaulding are two of the best, ‘finds’ I’ve come across in the past year. I've previously written a long post on another forum on this subject. Here are some of the high points:

It ain't just about marginally-skilled bad guys with pistols. Instead, it's about modestly-trained desperados with an entirely different combat mindset and sense of, 'target acquisition' than what the rest of us are more commonly used to!

These guys are achieving CQB gunfighting success through the, 'backdoor' of combat shooting. Their favored attack is by surprise: Without the use of holsters (Which are, quite possibly, viewed as something that slows them down!) these street gunmen dress to conceal, and know how to protect their gun hands by, 'blading' an interviewing officer while feigning initial cooperation. Astonishingly, they evidence a 70% rapid fire hit ratio along with a penchant for following up with a killing shot(s) if necessary!

All this has convinced me that the rest of us need to take a serious second look at how we view, both, combat marksmanship and target acquisition. Personally, I define CQB shooting as anything inside 16 yards; and, in this regard, I am, also, positive that the average gunman’s rapid fire CQB shooting skills are simply NOT what they should be.

Now that I'm retired, combat pistol shooting has become my principal pastime. I'm very interested in this subject, pursue it as an avocation, and study everything I can get my hands on. Modern CCTV surveillance and dash cam videos have been a great source of information for me, too.

Case in point: I recorded and have repeatedly studied the infamous, 'Kehoe Brothers shootout'. I have looked at those scenes of the two officers exchanging fire with Cheyne Kehoe over and over again. One officer is so stunned by the rapidity of this unexpected event, that he immediately fails to promptly clear leather; and, the other officer tries to take carefully aimed (precision) shots while moving backwards until he finally loses his balance, and (in the unedited version) falls down!

What’s Cheyne Kehoe doing in the meantime? Damn, he’s hunkered on down behind his semiautomatic pistol and just keeps blasting away! Cheyne puts out, at least, two bullets for every one that’s fired at him. (Lucky for those two officers that Cheyne wasn’t all that proficient in combat pistolcraft because, otherwise … .)

This shootout is a classic example of what to expect in a real street gunfight. As a matter of fact, Cheyne Kehoe’s performance during this sudden firefight, identically, conforms with information contained in the FBI’s most recent report on officer involved shootings.

Among the numerous conclusions this 5 year study reaches are the salient facts:

(1) Police assailants have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger – None! According to one prison interviewee; ‘If you hesitate, you’re dead’. ‘You either have the instinct (to kill) or you don’t.’ ‘If you don’t, then, you’re in trouble on the street … .’

(2) ALL of the admitted assailants - claimed to be instinctive shooters who pointed and fired their weapons without attempting to consciously align the sights.

(3) ‘They simply focused on IMMEDIATELY getting the gun out and using it!’ … ‘These assailants have learned the extreme importance of: feigning initial cooperation, getting close-in, then, 'jumping' an opponent, and firing for maximum effect. Or as one of the offenders put it: ‘We’re not looking for no marksmanship award.’ ‘Instead, we just point it in your direction and start shooting!’ ‘It don’t matter where you get hit - just as long as you get hit!’ It could be up at your head, at your chest, or down at your legs – Don’t matter!’ ‘Once I squeeze the trigger and you fall, then, all I got ‘a do is walk over to you and finish ya off!’

(4) As a quoted attacker said; ‘It don’t matter where we aim; we’re just going to keep shooting in your direction until you go down!’

So, what does this tell you? Certainly nothing you’re going to learn while playing, ‘paper punching gun games’. Everybody’s welcome to draw their own conclusions. As for me? I am convinced that pistol handling skills like: (1) knowing how to smoothly acquire and maintain a flash sight picture, (2) knowing how to fire your Glock (or whatever) from the trigger reset point, (3) being able to seamlessly switch between point shooting and sighted fire, and (4) knowing how to slip into, ‘modified point shooting’ (as in holding low and, ‘firing off the back of the slide’ while carefully maintaining a vertical sight picture) are, all, paramount to survival in any CQB gunfight.

The long and the short of it is that pistol marksmanship skills are NOT enough. Your proprioceptive CQB gunfighting reflexes, also, have to be well honed; and, for those occasions when - for whatever reasons - you can't get a really good sight picture you have to know how it, 'feels' when you're holding low and still firing, accurately, 'off the back of the slide'.

Times are changing; and, with the release of this new FBI report, all of us are going to see a whole new way of handling a pistol in a gunfight. My best guess is that: (1) The expended round count is going to go up; and, (2) pistolcraft is going to move away from traditional Cooper handgun methodology and lean more toward the, 'FistFire' techniques D.R. Middlebrook is presently teaching. Time will tell. In the meantime, this is how I, personally, practice using a pistol; and, I see no good reason to do it any other way.
__________________

Last edited by G21.45; 07-05-2008 at 02:45 AM.
G21.45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 03:37 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hydrashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta,TEXAS!
Posts: 705
Default

Excellent post! I'll only quote the sections I want to specifically respond or add to....

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
All this has convinced me that the rest of us need to take a serious second look at how we view, both, combat marksmanship and target acquisition. Personally, I define CQB shooting as anything inside 16 yards; and, in this regard, I am, also, positive that the average gunman’s rapid fire CQB shooting skills are simply NOT what they should be.
Personally, I consider different levels of "CQB"... a term I believe to be a little too generalized. In On Killing p.98 by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (Ret.), he has a diagram used in a slightly different context, but can be applied quite nicely to the point I'm trying to make. While his diagram doesn't list the distances specifically, it can give you a good idea of the "range".

Ranges in the diagram:
  • Max Range (Bomber, Artillery)
  • Long Range (Sniper, Anti-Armor Missiles, etc.)
  • Mid-Range (Rifle)
  • Handgrenade Range
  • Close Range (Pistol/Rifle)
  • Bayonet Range
  • Knife Range
  • Hand-to-Hand-Combat Range
  • Sexual Range

I would consider anything inside of knife range to be "CQB", while most would consider anything within bayonet range. Why is this distinction important? Only because of the unconventional method I would use to shoot back... anything beyond 5 yards, I'm going to make sure I at least visualize my front sight post when returning fire, but inside 5 yards (roughly), I'm confident I can make very rapid well-placed shots using the Center-Axis Relock method taught by Paul Castle of Sabre Tactical

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
Among the numerous conclusions this 5 year study reaches are the salient facts:

(1) Police assailants have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger – None! According to one prison interviewee; ‘If you hesitate, you’re dead’. ‘You either have the instinct (to kill) or you don’t.’ ‘If you don’t, then, you’re in trouble on the street … .’
On the other hand, a surprising number of police officers simply won't shoot back. The majority that have done so after some hesitation. When those officers were asked what they were thinking during their period of hesitation, the number 1 answer was, "Thou shalt not kill." After reading On Killing, it makes perfect sense. The good guys tend to not be killers... and the reason bad guys ARE bad guys is because they are willing to kill. A few days ago, I was watching season 1 of T.J. Hooker, and in the first or second episode, one of the recruits was being tested... and failed the test because he simply wouldn't shoot even when a fellow officer's life was in imminent danger. Who says TV can't offer good training???

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
(2) ALL of the admitted assailants - claimed to be instinctive shooters who pointed and fired their weapons without attempting to consciously align the sights.

...

(4) As a quoted attacker said; ‘It don’t matter where we aim; we’re just going to keep shooting in your direction until you go down!’
It's easy to claim to be an instinct shooter when you don't really care where your rounds go. That's why bad guys are bad guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
The long and the short of it is that pistol marksmanship skills are NOT enough. Your proprioceptive CQB gunfighting reflexes, also, have to be well honed; and, for those occasions when - for whatever reasons - you can't get a really good sight picture you have to know how it, 'feels' when you're holding low and still firing, accurately, 'off the back of the slide'.

Times are changing; and, with the release of this new FBI report, all of us are going to see a whole new way of handling a pistol in a gunfight. My best guess is that: (1) The expended round count is going to go up; and, (2) pistolcraft is going to move away from traditional Cooper handgun methodology and move more toward the, 'FistFire' techniques D.R. Middlebrook is presently teaching. Time will tell. In the meantime, this is how I, personally, practice using a pistol; and, I see no good reason to do it any other way.
This just reinforces what I was saying above about my "unconventional" CQB gunfighting methods above. I'm not familiar with Dr. Middlebrook, but I will be soon... Again, excellent post!
__________________
hydrashok is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 04:50 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

hydrashok,
sorry if i came across as being rude. i'd just gotten done with an argument with a coworker which coincidentally was about the war in iraq. i also just got word yesterday that one my buddies got killed in afghanistan. please accept my appology. i guess the reason we have these debates is because we're all on the same side here. any lesson we can learn here that can save a life is well worth it. stay safe on your next deployment.

__________________
coltm4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 05:21 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hydrashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta,TEXAS!
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coltm4 View Post
hydrashok,
sorry if i came across as being rude. i'd just gotten done with an argument with a coworker which coincidentally was about the war in iraq. i also just got word yesterday that one my buddies got killed in afghanistan. please accept my appology. i guess the reason we have these debates is because we're all on the same side here. any lesson we can learn here that can save a life is well worth it. stay safe on your next deployment.
I'm sorry you had to argue about the war in Iraq... I'm really sorry for your loss.

I like to think we're all friends her, and an apology wasn't necessary... but since you threw it out there, I accept. It doesn't hurt my feelings at all when people have differing opinions... especially when it causes me to re-evaluate how I do things that will keep me alive. It's a weird idiosyncrasy I have.... I like breathing.

But seriously, I really am sorry for your loss.
__________________
hydrashok is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 06:21 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 578
Default

While many or perhaps even all of you are going think I'm crazy with no business jumping in this without formal training and LEO or military experience I would like to express a few opinions based on 3 decades of observations of LEO's working off duty as security guards .

All of these studies and training programs seem to be all about trying to teach officers skills they had many years ago and the Politically correct crowd insisted on eliminating .

I have watched many a LEO dealing with suspects doing things from resisting arrest to attempting to intimidate an officer in a street interview though , never in a gunfight .

Many times I have seen a suspect try to get in an officers or other party's face and seen far to many officers who hesitate to act and wind up being backed down to at least some degree . On the other hand I have seen other officers seem to see it all coming and meet them with force of his own and they have always gotten the upped hand and control of the situation very quickly .

The ones who can control a situation without ever really getting out of line and also prevent its escalation are usually the ones with former military training and some combat experience or just the bare requirements and simple experience as a cop .

In every case that I saw an officer get backed down it always turned out to be younger ones or those with higher levels of education in the subjects of Criminal Law and psychology .

I personally think in todays world a LEO is at a disadvantage compared to your average citizen with a CCW when it comes to dealing with a violent encounter .

When a civilian gets in a deadly encounter and takes a life the main and really only imperative question is was it justified self defense ? The reason in most parts of the country juries will still empathize with a victim of crime .

With all of these training and educational requirements for a police officer they seem to be required or at least expected by the public to some how some way find an alternative to deadly force even when there may be none .

In most parts of the nation we have all but eliminated the Two man patrol units all for financial reasons and put officers in extreme danger .

They must be able to identify and respond to a deadly threat without hesitation yet not overreact and offend so many different segments of the population .

Just as a simple example of a cops difficulties look at the many different languages one in a major metropolitan area could run into being used .

In St. Louis alone a dedicated traffic cop could pull over people speaking no less than a dozen different languages with only the barest understanding of English and our traffic laws .

I bet cops have felt the need to pull their guns constantly due to people suddenly reaching into purses or diving for the glove box or other compartment without warning all due to a language barrier and the fact that officer is all alone .

As far as the Laws themselves officers don't need their heads all clogged up with crap they are not lawyers after all .

A little less education and a lot more plain old common sense would make a big difference in officer survival especially at the upper levels of the force .

Spend millions on studies and millions more on training when what officers really need is a partner , a second set of eyes , a second opinion and a second gun when all hell breaks loose .

I think the lone officer emboldens criminals to take the chance and try to kill them .

__________________
BigO01 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:07 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hydrashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta,TEXAS!
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
This just reinforces what I was saying above about my "unconventional" CQB gunfighting methods above.
This statement was approved by the Department of Redundancy Department...

Sorry about that.
__________________

-=Jerry A. Goodson=-

Tri-State Tactical
1010 N. Louise St.
Atlanta, Texas 75551
430-342-3376

http://www.3tactical.com
hydrashok is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 02:34 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
The ideology behind adding stressors to shooting is to prepare the shooter for combat. Unfortunately, there's no realistic way to replicate the stress of real live combat nor the psychological effects of killing a real live person. Therefore, causing stress during combat training aids the shooter in the mechanical response when it really counts.
Here I beg to differ: Actually, there is a perfectly subjective and excellent way to prepare oneself for physical combat; and, once again, this is another predicament where Dave Spaulding’s work has significant value. Spaulding emphasizes the extreme importance of going into combat with a well-defined concept of how you intend to survive – a well-defined concept!

Spaulding points out that pistoleros with a defined plan-of-action tend to engage sooner and act more effectively. This sort of experienced gunman often survives because: (1) He tends to act first! (2) He remains circumspect and knowingly anticipates his adversary’s intentions; and, (3) one way or another, he prevents his opponent from getting close enough to initiate a successful attack.

(Never forget that every combatant has an, 'attack comfort zone' - nominally defined as that distance at which he feels competent to win!)

What is the best way to learn how to do these things? MENTAL VISUALIZATION! Don’t wait for something to happen; instead, visualize what you will do BEFORE the event actually takes place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
…. The difference between law-abiding citizens and law enforcement is the fact that we're accountable for ALL of our rounds, and criminals simply don't care where their stray rounds land. When I went to SWAT school, my instructor said; ‘Every round that misses is another day in court.’
(Has anybody told this to the New York City Police Department?)

Sorry, but, this attitude is, ‘mental cabbage’. We should always, ‘shoot to COM’. Any other viewpoint only serves to diminish proper target focus while in the midst of a life or death event.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
I was, also, in a self-defense shooting several years ago where I wasn't affected by tunnel vision or reduced fine motor skills - only the auditory exclusion. I know I'm the exception instead of the rule, but that's because I train on a constant basis. ….
Yes! There’s too much confusion over this pseudo-intellectual, ‘fear response’ nonsense. Here’s your three choices: Fight, flight, or freeze. The time is long past due to, ‘put the lie’ to the presumed inevitability of: tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, memory degradation, and loss of fine motor skills. This phenomenon is no more universal than it is guaranteed to occur.

As Dave Spaulding clearly points out: Targeted gunmen who do not fall into fear response are able to choose an appropriate response, get motivated, get mad, and ultimately greatly improve their chances to win the fight. It needs to be recognized that there is such a thing as, ‘fear response’ and there is, also, such a thing as, ‘fight response’. They are NOT the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
…. Personally, I consider different levels of, ‘CQB’ .... a term I believe to be a little too generalized. In, ‘On Killing’, p.98, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (Ret.), he has a diagram used in a slightly different context; but, it can be applied quite nicely to the point I'm trying to make. ....
Cute! But I’m going to emphatically disagree. Nothing against Dave Grossman; he has his good points; but, much of the information is dated. ‘Why’ do I disagree? Because we are, specifically, talking about combat pistolcraft – combat pistolcraft!

(1) In order to win a CQB gunfight you’ve got to be faster than the other guy; and, if you can’t be faster then you’ve got to be able to initiate deadly action BEFORE the other guy is able to do the same thing.

(2) In order to win a CQB gunfight you’ve got to be able to use distance to your best advantage. Again, Dave Spaulding points out that successful gunmen tend to engage from farther away than unsuccessful gunmen who make the serious tactical mistakes of: (2a) tending to wait too long, and (2b) allowing an adversary to move into his comfortable, ‘gunfighting proficiency zone’ before finally deciding to take action.

(3) In order to win a CQB gunfight, the other gunman’s intrinsic advantages must be correctly recognized and soundly defeated BEFORE he’s able to use them, effectively, against you. If you are already using time and distance correctly against an opponent, then, he’s going to be forced to start from behind the curve AND from outside his preferred comfort zone. It is here and now that your own superior training and better marksmanship really come to the fore!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
On the other hand, a surprising number of police officers simply won't shoot back. The majority that have done so after some hesitation. When those officers were asked what they were thinking during their period of hesitation, the number 1 answer was; ‘Thou shalt not kill.’
Yeah, you can see this in the Kehoe shootout dash cam video!

(Yes, I know what the Ohio engagement protocols were at the time; but, still, that officer was very slow to draw; and, by refusing to put a round, squarely, in the middle of Chayne Kehoe’s face when he had the chance, that officer’s hesitancy to fire almost caused an innocent bystander to be subsequently killed; and, THAT is not supposed to be what it’s all about.)

Let’s take a moment to clear something else up. The Sixth Commandment does NOT actually state; ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Instead it is correctly translated as; 'Thou shalt not murder.’ There is an emphatic difference between these two statements; and, any Christian who has sworn himself to protect and defend the public good should know and clearly understand the difference!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
After reading, ‘On Killing’ it makes perfect sense. The good guys tend to not be killers... and the reason bad guys ARE bad guys is because they are willing to kill. ….
Every warrior who personally subscribes to Judeo-Christian ethics needs to clearly understand what he’s really all about. Has the thought, ever, occurred to you that The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, is a killer. That’s right, a killer! If you doubt this for so much as one moment then study the Bible books of: Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Revelation.

(Remember, one of the most superlative killers who’s ever lived, King David of Israel, is recorded in the Holy Bible to have committed no publicly chargeable sin until AFTER he stole Bathsheba and murdered the righteous Uriah.)

When The Lord Jesus Christ returns to this earth, His garments will be spattered in blood; and He will wield a, 'rod of iron'. Any Christian who fails to understand this is, as far as I’m concerned, still in Sunday school.

It is not written for naught that,

‘See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no other god with Me: I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal.'

'Neither is there anyone that can deliver out of My Hand. For I lift up My Hand to heaven, and say, I live forever! If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine Hand take hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me.’
(Exodus 32:39-41)

The way I see things anyone who spends a lot of time on, both, the firing line AND in church should get this matter straight inside his own heart and mind BEFORE he goes out, armed, into the Devil’s world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
It's easy to claim to be an instinct shooter when you don't really care where your rounds go. That's why bad guys are bad guys.
True! These people are, essentially, ‘ambush predators’ and need to be recognized as such. Here’s a few things I’ve gleaned from many hours of watching videos of ambush predators at work.

(1) When dealing with a potential ambush predator what is the most dangerous moment?

The correct answer: The approach! The big risk is that the other guy’s gun will be right there and ready to go. How many good guys would be alive, today, if they had simply demanded to see an ambush predator’s hands BEFORE they closed with him? The hands! The hands! It’s always in the hands.

(2) What is the most common mistake police and military personnel make when dealing with a potential ambush predator?

The correct answer: They fail to demand that the hands be placed on top of the head, and KEPT THERE until after the interviewee is examined and/or cuffed. If I’ve watched this mistake made once, I’ve watched it made a hundred times; and on a few occasions I’ve, also, watched an officer being shot!

(3) When dealing with a potential ambush predator what is the most commonly missed principal danger signal?

The correct answer: ‘Blading’ the weapon side (usually the right) away from the investigating officer. If there’s a fourth principal danger signal it’s, ‘cover clothing’; and, as the FBI report points out: Remember to watch the females and children. When your life is on the line, don’t be shy about the necessity to frisk a female.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
I'm not familiar with Dr. Middlebrook, but I will be soon .... Again, excellent post!
Why does everybody say that? It’s just plain, ‘D. R. Middlebrooks’. As far as I know he’s just an extraordinarily talented pistolero with a unique method, and not a doctor. In my personal opinion Middlebrooks is worth the time; and, although retired from competition, one of the most skillful and savvy pistoleros, alive, in America, today.

FistFire, Tactical Shooting Academy
__________________

Last edited by G21.45; 07-06-2008 at 04:03 PM.
G21.45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2008, 02:21 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hydrashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta,TEXAS!
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
Here I beg to differ: Actually, there is a perfectly subjective and excellent way to prepare oneself for physical combat; and, once again, this is another predicament where Dave Spaulding’s work has significant value. Spaulding emphasizes the extreme importance of going into combat with a well-defined concept of how you intend to survive – a well-defined concept!
Oh I wasn't negating Spaulding's doctrine... as a matter of fact, I subscribe to it. Adding stressors isn't the only way to train for combat, but it certainly is a way... and a way that is widely used. My whole life revolves around the "what if" game

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
Sorry, but, this attitude is, ‘mental cabbage’. We should always, ‘shoot to COM’. Any other viewpoint only serves to diminish proper target focus while in the midst of a life or death event.
I don't think it's a bad attitude at all. You're right, aways shoot COM. The thing is, always HIT COM. If you miss, you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
Cute! But I’m going to emphatically disagree. Nothing against Dave Grossman; he has his good points; but, much of the information is dated. ‘Why’ do I disagree? Because we are, specifically, talking about combat pistolcraft – combat pistolcraft!
In my reference, LTC Grossman wasn't talking about CQB, he was talking about the psychological resistance to killing. I applied his diagram to CQB... Here's why.

CQB seems to be a term that has been way too generalized. I used the diagram to differentiate between different stages, phases, or whatever for CQB. How I react to a BG at 5 yards will be drastically different that how I react inside 1 yard or at 16 yards. Where does CQB start for you? What would YOU consider to be CQB? A lot of die hards would consider anything inside pistol range to be CQB....

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
Let’s take a moment to clear something else up. The Sixth Commandment does NOT actually state; ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Instead it is correctly translated as; 'Thou shalt not murder.’ There is an emphatic difference between these two statements; and, any Christian who has sworn himself to protect and defend the public good should know and clearly understand the difference!
You can easily get EVERY sworn officer to say that, yet, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, many will hesitate. It's a tough moral and ethical decision to make in a split second. Whether the officer subscribes to Judeo-Christian ethics or not, it's simply human nature to resist killing another human being... justified or not. On Killing by LTC Grossman provides more than ample evidence of such... the closer the BG is, the harder it is-psychologically-to kill him/her.


This is an excellent topic, but I think we're getting off topic. I suggest we start a new thread on the subject. Any takers??
__________________

-=Jerry A. Goodson=-

Tri-State Tactical
1010 N. Louise St.
Atlanta, Texas 75551
430-342-3376

http://www.3tactical.com
hydrashok is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2008, 06:05 AM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
.... CQB seems to be a term that has been way too generalized. I used the diagram to differentiate between different stages, phases, or whatever for CQB. How I react to a BG at 5 yards will be drastically different that how I react inside 1 yard or at 16 yards. Where does CQB start for you? What would YOU consider to be CQB? A lot of die hards would consider anything inside pistol range to be CQB....
As I've indicated, it depends on my opponent and what type of weapon he's carrying. What I'm going to immediately attempt to do is get one step ahead of him. My principal recommendation would be to draw first and fire; but, it could be anything as simple as just stepping off his vertical body centerline, or shielding a portion of my body with hard cover.

I understand that my replies are highly abstract; and, I apologize; but, I'm more concerned with correctly determining, 'What' the other guy expects me to do than I am with deciding exactly how I should respond. This ideation is difficult to grasp until you realize that I'm always mentally and physically maneuvering to stay ahead of my opponent. Once I recognize that I'm at risk, it's not so much a matter of the other guy attacking me as it is me who is attacking him. (Get it?)

Look, in every engagement there is a victim, and an aggressor. These are your only two choices. Me? I refuse to allow myself to think like a victim. If the other guy wants my blood, then, I want his; AND, I want him a heck of a lot more than he could ever want me! (It's, probably, a Sicilian thing!)

I would suggest that you don't set any fixed mental parameters for exactly, 'What' CQB fighting distance should be. Yes, the term has become, almost, a pop culture phrase on many gun forums; but, as I've previously mentioned, I'll consciously work to keep the other guy out of his, 'combat comfort zone'.

I'm very well aware that experienced gunmen are able to open up quickly from 12 yards out. (And, may very well prefer to do so!) That's the reason, 'Why' I regularly practice all the way out to 50 feet. Here's a typical 16 1/2 yard rapid fire target. I shot this using double and triple taps -



A gangbanger is going to want to get in a whole lot closer than 12 yards, though, before he's comfortable to start the draw and open up. To my mind, this means that CQB combat distance is a relative variable that can (and will) change with each encounter. I'm able to conceive CQB distance inside 1 yard. (Support thumb above heart!) I'm, also, aware that with some gunmen or weapons CQB distance could be all the way out to 50 yards, or more!

I don't set fixed parameters inside my head; instead, I use specific techniques. (See the difference?) If the other guy is able to effectively engage and, possibly, eliminate me with whatever weapon he's using, then, as far as I'm concerned, we ARE involved in CQB. 1 to 300 feet, it's all the same to me; the only thing that's going to be different is the manner in which I'll choose to engage.

Usually, I'd want to keep a pistolero off me and would do whatever I have to in order to increase the distance between us. On the other hand, I would do everything possible to bring a rifleman into me - especially into me inside crowded quarters.

At risk of appearing to be a, 'diehard' it's the other gunman and/or his weapon that sets these distances for me. My own emphasis is on method and technique - NOT distance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
You can easily get EVERY sworn officer to say that, yet, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, many will hesitate. It's a tough moral and ethical decision to make in a split second. Whether the officer subscribes to Judeo-Christian ethics or not, it's simply human nature to resist killing another human being... justified or not. On Killing by LTC Grossman provides more than ample evidence of such... the closer the BG is, the harder it is-psychologically-to kill him/her.
I don't know how to respond to this? It's never been a problem I've suffered from. Do I understand what you're saying? Yes, but, it doesn't apply to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
This is an excellent topic, but I think we're getting off topic. I suggest we start a new thread on the subject. Any takers??
I've enjoyed this conversation, too. (Even learned a few things; and, at my age, that's not an easy thing to do!) Generally, I'm not open to discussing a subject like this on the internet. As far as I'm concerned rhodieusmc has more than got his money's worth. In this one thread I've summated a lifetime's worth of difficult-to-acquire personal combat acumen.

It's been fun. I don't usually initiate new threads; however, if I see that you've opened a new topic, I'll be glad to participate. Thank you!
__________________

Last edited by G21.45; 07-07-2008 at 06:16 AM.
G21.45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2008, 07:48 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hydrashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta,TEXAS!
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G21.45 View Post
...As far as I'm concerned rhodieusmc has more than got his money's worth.
...speaking of! I was eager to read both parts of his article, but he's been AWOL since shortly after he started this dang thread! WTH??
__________________

-=Jerry A. Goodson=-

Tri-State Tactical
1010 N. Louise St.
Atlanta, Texas 75551
430-342-3376

http://www.3tactical.com
hydrashok is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Cleaning techniques ScarletAvatar AR-15 Discussion 8 11-13-2008 01:34 PM
This needs to be put out Part 2 Kelly J Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 09-26-2008 01:54 PM
techniques to defeat thermal imaging mikewalker Survival & Sustenance Living Forum 22 08-11-2008 11:32 PM
mount and scope mounting techniques boomer Gunsmithing Forum 2 11-25-2007 04:30 PM
Part 2 Of 2 Hamrick Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 05-16-2007 12:44 PM