Episode 152 - Busting off the X

[Bob Mayne]

Please use this thread for comments and questions about Episode 152 - Busting off the X.  Many thanks to my fellow students for a good interview. It really taught me how much I still don't know. Hope you enjoy.

Links: www.onesourcetactical.com
        www.concealmentsolutions.com
        www.warrentactical.com
        www.hivizsights.com

[skifast]

I will preface this by saying I enjoy training.  I think it is useful.  I am a NRA instructor.

That being said, I think it is overselling and hyperbole to say that if you are not training to be a gunfighter that you don't value your life.  The fact is that the vast majority of times that an untrained gun owner uses his gun, he prevails.  This is true even though he does not explode off the X, he has not thoroughly trained how to deal with malfunctions, he has not shot his gun off a square range, etc.

I train for the 1/2% case that advanced skills are necessary.  why, because I like the training.  Most people are not tactical gun nuts.

[Bob Mayne]

Perhaps there are a few reasons that gun training is essential that you may have forgotten about.  

1.  If you do have to use your handgun in self defense, you will probably fare much better in court if you can prove you've had formal training on when to shoot, when not to shoot and how to properly and safely handle your gun.  I would think that would give you a huge advantage vs. not having any training at all.

2.  In a gunfight, I happen to think it's just as important to learn how NOT TO GET SHOT, as it is how to shoot someone.  An untrained person probably won't know how to do that.

3.  As Massad Ayoob clearly explains, sometimes just saying "I was in fear for my life" might not cut it anymore.  You need more training than that and as I mentioned in point #1, if you can prove you went through several training classes, wouldn't you be better off than someone who had no training?

I'm not saying you have to be a tactical gun nut.  All the training I've been through, has been realistic, common sense training.  It didn't seem  like we were "tactical gun nuts" but rather people who wanted to have as much advantage as possible.

Just curious, where do you get your statistics from when you say the vast majority of the time the untrained gun owner prevails?  
Even if it is overselling and hyperbole, if someone's life is saved because I oversold them and used hyperbole, then I will actually feel good about that.

[Mudcat]

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
You don't move off the X to make the shot you get off the X to avoid getting shot and to get inside of the O.O.D.A. Loop. If you can get inside of his loop then he will be reacting to your actions. This is of course a huge advantage. It is more important to not get shot than it is to shoot the bad guy!

[NS2]

I will preface this by saying I enjoy training.  I think it is useful.  I am a NRA instructor.

That being said, I think it is overselling and hyperbole to say that if you are not training to be a gunfighter that you don't value your life.  The fact is that the vast majority of times that an untrained gun owner uses his gun, he prevails.  This is true even though he does not explode off the X, he has not thoroughly trained how to deal with malfunctions, he has not shot his gun off a square range, etc.

I train for the 1/2% case that advanced skills are necessary.  why, because I like the training.  Most people are not tactical gun nuts.

There's a huge difference between training to shoot and training to survive a gunfight. Bob's not over-selling anything. He's just speaking from a different knowledge base than the average person. He's simply trying to point out that nobody wants to leak, and if you're leaking, your likely hood of interrupting the bad guy's loop is dramatically reduced.   Avoid leaking through movement?  Seems like solid advice to me.

I train people to go into harm's way. Been doing it for over 20 years now. I can't say I ever met someone who felt they were over-trained and to a man, I have no student ever come back on me claiming it was bad that we drove movement into their base of gun fighting skills.  We have a name for those people that stand still in a gunfight. It's target.

You sound like you're well trained by the NRA and that you follow their teachings very closely. One thing they fail to cover is what's its like to be in an actual gunfight. Please understand that people revert to their base level of training when stressed that hard. If that base is one designed for the statistical probability you pose then they're GTG. What if it's not?  What if the encounter requires a dynamic exchange between two moving parties?  Since your trainees aren't ready to move, you'll have fewer repeat students. The rest of us will train to the worst of all possibilities and hope to never need the skills.

I'll leave you with two things:

1) why is it important to train to shoot with your mouth closed?

2) most responsible citizens don't train to be gun fighters for themselves. They do it for their family and loved ones. Those in their lives for which they are willing to kill or die.  It's not being a tactical gun nut.  It's being a responsible person who cares enough for their loved ones to put in the work.




Answer to number 1).  Blowback from the target in CQB situations. Don't want to become a cannibal by mistake.

[Gandalf]

My biggest gripe with this podcast subject is the amount of time Bob discusses his taking shots at 100 yards with a handgun.

First, as Bob glossed over, just from a legal point of view, shooting at someone with a handgun at long distances is problematic.  You can't apply the Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy reasoning for self defense.  Statistically, your likelihood of getting into a gunfight from such extreme ranges is just about zero.  Has it happened?  Yes, the shooting at Fairchild AFB comes to mind.  But that's an extremely rare occurrence, and one that your average citizen isn't going to find themselves in. 

If the point was to simply reinforce a pistol's accuracy, shooting at that range is rather silly as well.  Hitting a target at 100 yards from a stock firearm with a barrel of 4-5 inches lobbing a piece of factory loaded copper jacketed lead that weighs 100-230 grains is down to pure chance.  Even Bob mentioned that out of a 10 round magazine he hit the target twice (at 50 yards) proves that.

Also, at that range, how can you confidently be assured that what's behind the target is cleared enough to not violate a fundamental safety rule?

Finally, Bob mentioned that yes, he was standing perfectly still, taking carefully aimed slow fire shots.  Are you going to do that in a gunfight, especially after spending the first day talking about how you don't want to stand in one place like a lump getting shot at?

Frankly, I don't really see the point in a defensive gun class, to spent the time (and your money) to do something that isn't defensive pistol orientated, rather pointless, legally questionable, unsafe tactic.  Especially one that you can do at any square range on your own time for sh*ts and giggles.

I'm sorry, but I'd seriously question any "school" that spent any time "teaching" something like that.

[Jon Payne]

Just because you can't do it means little to us. We don't hold ourselves to your low standards.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Bob Mayne]

After some practice, I hit the target 4 times in a row at the 100 yard distance, I forgot to mention that.  Gandalf, I understand your points.  The purpose of the 100 and 50 yard shooting is to improve marksmanship skills and to instill in the students mind the one CAN be accurate with almost any handgun, especially a well built modern handgun.  What it taught me, is that accuracy doesn't have a lot to do with the gun, but mostly the shooter.  Before the class, I didn't believe I could even come close to hitting that steel plate at 100 yards.  After the class, I believe I CAN.  That's the point.  We only spent about 1 hour out of an entire 2 days practicing that.  And I only spent less than about 15% of my podcast talking about it. 

The entire class definitely made me better with respect to defending myself with a handgun.  And you're right, a 100 yard defensive shot is unlikely and perhaps not even wise.  But that's not really the "defensive" part of the course. 

I think it is defensive oriented because of the simple fact that it really improves the shooters marksmanship skills.  Isn't that a defensive skill? 

[Jon Payne]

Bob, some folks confuse the reactive and proactive gunfights and the need to train for both.

After some practice, I hit the target 4 times in a row at the 100 yard distance, I forgot to mention that.  Gandalf, I understand your points.  The purpose of the 100 and 50 yard shooting is to improve marksmanship skills and to instill in the students mind the one CAN be accurate with almost any handgun, especially a well built modern handgun.  What it taught me, is that accuracy doesn't have a lot to do with the gun, but mostly the shooter.  Before the class, I didn't believe I could even come close to hitting that steel plate at 100 yards.  After the class, I believe I CAN.  That's the point.  We only spent about 1 hour out of an entire 2 days practicing that.  And I only spent less than about 15% of my podcast talking about it. 

The entire class definitely made me better with respect to defending myself with a handgun.  And you're right, a 100 yard defensive shot is unlikely and perhaps not even wise.  But that's not really the "defensive" part of the course. 

I think it is defensive oriented because of the simple fact that it really improves the shooters marksmanship skills.  Isn't that a defensive skill? 

[Jon Payne]

>>If the point was to simply reinforce a pistol's accuracy, shooting at that range is rather silly as well.  Hitting a target at 100 yards from a stock firearm with a barrel of 4-5 inches lobbing a piece of factory loaded copper jacketed lead that weighs 100-230 grains is down to pure chance. >>

Care to make a documented wager about it being pure chance?  We can do a podcast and live feed video.  I'll hit 5 for 5 at 100 yards, but it'll cost you $2,000.00.  If I don't hit 5 for 5 I'll pay you $2000.00  We can do it at the Orange Gun Club.  I don't hide behind a screen name and my rep is on the line.  If you have any doubt I can make those hits you'll make the wager.

[CR Williams]

There are a number of reasons other than the actual need to do it in a fight to practice 'going long'. I put a few of them in here:

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/11/the-long-shot.html

A felon's view of the limited kind of movement that some teach can be found here:

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/felon-firearms

It is true that many untrained people have survived and won and stopped attacks with guns they had little if any practice using. What I wonder sometimes is, how many others would be alive if they had gotten training? How many are dead because they thought the gun or the basic qualification training was enough? How many more good guys would we have if they practiced like the bad guys do (and bad guys do practice)?

Understand also that it's not just evasive movement that's taught in these and other SI courses. It is evasive movement with the drawstroke and presentation and accurate return fire. Evasion done properly buys you time, but it doesn't buy you safety (unless hard cover is that close). Evasion buys you the opportunity to counterattack and get safe by ending the fight quickly.

[Bob Mayne]

Those are 2 very good articles, CR., thanks.

[Gandalf]

>>If the point was to simply reinforce a pistol's accuracy, shooting at that range is rather silly as well.  Hitting a target at 100 yards from a stock firearm with a barrel of 4-5 inches lobbing a piece of factory loaded copper jacketed lead that weighs 100-230 grains is down to pure chance. >>

Care to make a documented wager about it being pure chance?  We can do a podcast and live feed video.  I'll hit 5 for 5 at 100 yards, but it'll cost you $2,000.00.  If I don't hit 5 for 5 I'll pay you $2000.00  We can do it at the Orange Gun Club.  I don't hide behind a screen name and my rep is on the line.  If you have any doubt I can make those hits you'll make the wager.

Just have to mention you don't have any "rep" to protect.  Neither do I.  These forum pissing contests are so funny.  Even funnier when the eknights come charging in, guns ablazing.

My point still stands.  Getting 2 out of 10 is luck, especially when it's your first time trying.  And to even attempt a shot like that in a defensive gun situation is pure idiocy.  If it's intent was to make you feel better about yourself instead of providing any actual skill development, then I guess it succeeded.  I wouldn't pay money to do it, myself.

[NS2]

>>If the point was to simply reinforce a pistol's accuracy, shooting at that range is rather silly as well.  Hitting a target at 100 yards from a stock firearm with a barrel of 4-5 inches lobbing a piece of factory loaded copper jacketed lead that weighs 100-230 grains is down to pure chance. >>

Care to make a documented wager about it being pure chance?  We can do a podcast and live feed video.  I'll hit 5 for 5 at 100 yards, but it'll cost you $2,000.00.  If I don't hit 5 for 5 I'll pay you $2000.00  We can do it at the Orange Gun Club.  I don't hide behind a screen name and my rep is on the line.  If you have any doubt I can make those hits you'll make the wager.

I'll put my money on Jon.

[Bob Mayne]

Glen, after some practice I was able to hit four in a row.  Thats not luck. Anyway what is wrong with learning the following.

1. Learning the capabilities of your firearm.
2. Learning the capability of one's self as a shooter.
3. Instilling confidence in your shooting abilities so that when you fire at closer range you'll be even more accurate.

Like I said we only spent about an hour out of a two day class on long range shooting. Do you think that's too much? And I only spent about 15% of the entire one hour podcast on the subject. Do you think that's too much?  Just because someone may not agree with your opinion does not mean that this is a forum pissing contest.  If you had been there and actually taken the course, I think you would have realized how the long range shooting at the end of the two days was beneficial to the entire course material that was taught.

[SteveZ]

I wouldn't say its luck either.  A couple of years ago for "fun" after an IPSC match was over, we put a steel IPSC target at 100 yards and took turns shooting it with a Colt SAA using low velocity 600fps loads and all of us were able to hit it consistently (like 4-5 out of 10)....and none of us had ever done that before.

The one thing I will say about shooting 100 yards...is that it amplifies EVERYTHING..a small movement of the sights is HUGE downrange...any flaws in your trigger press immediately show up....and it makes hitting targets at 50 and 25 yards seem trivial! 

[Bob Mayne]

I wouldn't say its luck either.  A couple of years ago for "fun" after an IPSC match was over, we put a steel IPSC target at 100 yards and took turns shooting it with a Colt SAA using low velocity 600fps loads and all of us were able to hit it consistently (like 4-5 out of 10)....and none of us had ever done that before.

The one thing I will say about shooting 100 yards...is that it amplifies EVERYTHING..a small movement of the sights is HUGE downrange...any flaws in your trigger press immediately show up....and it makes hitting targets at 50 and 25 yards seem trivial! 

Exactly. It make the closer shots that are more "defensive" in nature seem much easier.   That's the main point in practicing that. Even in a training class.

[Mudcat]

My biggest gripe with this podcast subject is the amount of time Bob discusses his taking shots at 100 yards with a handgun.

First, as Bob glossed over, just from a legal point of view, shooting at someone with a handgun at long distances is problematic.  You can't apply the Ability/Opportunity/Jeopardy reasoning for self defense.  Statistically, your likelihood of getting into a gunfight from such extreme ranges is just about zero.  Has it happened?  Yes, the shooting at Fairchild AFB comes to mind.  But that's an extremely rare occurrence, and one that your average citizen isn't going to find themselves in. 

If the point was to simply reinforce a pistol's accuracy, shooting at that range is rather silly as well.  Hitting a target at 100 yards from a stock firearm with a barrel of 4-5 inches lobbing a piece of factory loaded copper jacketed lead that weighs 100-230 grains is down to pure chance.  Even Bob mentioned that out of a 10 round magazine he hit the target twice (at 50 yards) proves that.

Also, at that range, how can you confidently be assured that what's behind the target is cleared enough to not violate a fundamental safety rule?

Finally, Bob mentioned that yes, he was standing perfectly still, taking carefully aimed slow fire shots.  Are you going to do that in a gunfight, especially after spending the first day talking about how you don't want to stand in one place like a lump getting shot at?

Frankly, I don't really see the point in a defensive gun class, to spent the time (and your money) to do something that isn't defensive pistol orientated, rather pointless, legally questionable, unsafe tactic.  Especially one that you can do at any square range on your own time for sh*ts and giggles.

I'm sorry, but I'd seriously question any "school" that spent any time "teaching" something like that.

I do happen to agree with some of your thoughts here. Bob spent a long tome talking about the 100 yard shots he did and the ones he made. Hey if it his first time shooting a pistol at 100 yards then I am sure he is excited to have made the hits. I could feel the excitement and enthusiasm in his voice, it was a confidence builder.

Legal stand point of having to defend ones self or family/friends at 100 yards. Nope I would not want any part of that argument or be the one in front of the jury. But yes we can search and possibly find an instance or 2 where it could have save peoples lives.

I can assure you that it is not luck and have done it many times and seen many others do it on the square range at my club, of course no rest, though our steel is much smaller at 12" circle. It isn't luck it is just employing the fundamentals well.

I doubt any safety rules were violated because they were on a range obviously with a 100 yard target. Real world self defense scenario though I understand your concern for safety.

You should fire at a speed that lets you fire quickly and still hit your target. Finding that perfect balance between speed and precision is what we all seek for all situations.

I thought this was a close range gun fighting class. Myself I don't see where this long range, drill? exhibition? confidence builder? fits it myself. But I did not hear how it was brought up to the class and integrated into it. So while I have some of the concern you have I cannot really say either way for sure. But read my first paragraph again.

SI is a well regarded training school. They have a very strong following and their classes get high reviews. I have taken 1 class with them but a fan boy I am not. I don't get involved in the squabbles between the schools I just go to the ones that I like and that I feel provide me with the best training for my dollar. They all have good stuff to teach. I have never walked away thinking I should have done something else with my $700-$1000 and weekend off.

Here is a video of one of my favorite trainers shooting at 100 yards with a G19 with a set of Big Dots. Just to show you it isn't just luck.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AY5RURFEGd8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Jon Payne]

>>If the point was to simply reinforce a pistol's accuracy, shooting at that range is rather silly as well.  Hitting a target at 100 yards from a stock firearm with a barrel of 4-5 inches lobbing a piece of factory loaded copper jacketed lead that weighs 100-230 grains is down to pure chance. >>

Care to make a documented wager about it being pure chance?  We can do a podcast and live feed video.  I'll hit 5 for 5 at 100 yards, but it'll cost you $2,000.00.  If I don't hit 5 for 5 I'll pay you $2000.00  We can do it at the Orange Gun Club.  I don't hide behind a screen name and my rep is on the line.  If you have any doubt I can make those hits you'll make the wager.

Just have to mention you don't have any "rep" to protect.  Neither do I.  These forum pissing contests are so funny.  Even funnier when the Knight's come charging in, guns blazing.

My point still stands.  Getting 2 out of 10 is luck, especially when it's your first time trying.  And to even attempt a shot like that in a defensive gun situation is pure idiocy.  If it's intent was to make you feel better about yourself instead of providing any actual skill development, then I guess it succeeded.  I wouldn't pay money to do it, myself.

I have to disagree.  I am a Staff Instructor for Suarez International, and taught this course.  You call it a pissing contest because I not only disagree with your statements, but put the burden of proof on myself by issuing you a simple challenge.  As Bob stated, the 2 out of 10 was on his 1st attempt.  Afterwards he went four for four.  You never answered my challenge because it makes you put your money where your mouth is.  It costs you nothing to discredit our training, but when put to task you crawfish.  I am Jon Payne, I can do what I say and train my students to do the same.  If you don't want to train with us I'll lose no sleep, just say you don't care for us or what we do.  There's no shame in that.  By trying to discredit us with over simplifed b.s. you only send more inquistive people our way.  We train for proactive and reactive enagements and I'll take your money anytime you feel you're up to the task.  I don't spend time knocking other trainers because I simply don't need to.

[skifast]

Perhaps there are a few reasons that gun training is essential that you may have forgotten about.  

1.  If you do have to use your handgun in self defense, you will probably fare much better in court if you can prove you've had formal training on when to shoot, when not to shoot and how to properly and safely handle your gun.  I would think that would give you a huge advantage vs. not having any training at all.

2.  In a gunfight, I happen to think it's just as important to learn how NOT TO GET SHOT, as it is how to shoot someone.  An untrained person probably won't know how to do that.

3.  As Massad Ayoob clearly explains, sometimes just saying "I was in fear for my life" might not cut it anymore.  You need more training than that and as I mentioned in point #1, if you can prove you went through several training classes, wouldn't you be better off than someone who had no training?

I'm not saying you have to be a tactical gun nut.  All the training I've been through, has been realistic, common sense training.  It didn't seem  like we were "tactical gun nuts" but rather people who wanted to have as much advantage as possible.

Just curious, where do you get your statistics from when you say the vast majority of the time the untrained gun owner prevails?  
Even if it is overselling and hyperbole, if someone's life is saved because I oversold them and used hyperbole, then I will actually feel good about that.

My statistics are anecdotal.  Reading newspapers, the armed citizen,etc.  What evidence do you have to base the immediate and critical need for training, since you are the one that is making the sale?  How many times has the good guy avoided getting shot by moving?  How many times has he been shot by not moving? 

Like I said, I am not against training.  I attend monthly training from a Navy SEAL.  I have taken a class on hand to hand fighting taught by the same SEAL.  I practice and teach exploding off the X and point shooting.  I have attended a class on CAR.