OLD CONTRAVERSIES – AGAIN

Since 10-19-08

10/15/2008

Recently at warriortalk, the members have been discussing one of the old contraversies of the internet...point shooting versus sighted shootings.  Initially I though "Wow! What will we discuss next? 9mm vs. 45? Weaver vs. Isoceles?"  But then as I read the discussion I saw that it was based more on the historical issues as well as the manner of teaching. Here is part of my response to that discussion.  

On Modern Technique (MT for short)

MT is totally competition based. It was born in competitive circles and not on the battlefield as some instructors say.  Jeff Cooper used the Bear Valley Gunslinger Matches as a test bed for what would work best (for winning those matches). The matches involved draw and shoot against reactive targets at roughly 7-10 yards.  This is a whopping long distance in terms of what range intervals we see actual gunfights take place (over 85% of gunfights happen well inside of this range).  Perhaps, and this is simply my own conjecture, they kept these distances long to avoid any injury from the use of back splash from the steel targets.  In any case, the issue of incoming fire was conspicously missing as was the need to do anything but draw and shoot.

What Cooper discovered was the best methods for winning the Bear Valley Leatherslaps by studying what the winners used. Now is this bad on the street? Not necessarily. As long as the parameters of the particular fight fit the same parameters as the Leatherslaps, and call for those skills.  Not all fights will fit those parameters.

As a side note I would add this. If a Leatherslap against stationary targets can be seen as a valid research tool, what can we say of our use of force on force??

MT is "weaver stance" based, is dependant of strong side carry method, requires proactive application (ostensibly via an always alert and ready mind set), mandates use of the sights at all distances, and deals with issues from a relatively long distance. Additionally, it discounts the reality of incoming fire, and assumes that two shots from a .45 ACP will end things.

When examining the MT use of the pistol, students of other weapon platforms will see a very real resemblance to the use of the rifle.  When studying with Cooper in the early 1990s we only approached inside of the 7 yard line a handful of times. Once at 3 yards for single head shots, and once during a shove and shoot drill titled the Mikalik. Everything else was at distances ranging from 7 yards to 100 yards!

There may be instructors who are "hybrids".  In other words, partially MT, and do not go along with all of this, but that is the heart and core of MT. In my opinion, MT is an incomplete system.

The other big system out there is the Fairbairn/Sykes/Applegate (FSA for short) "instinctive" point shooting. 

This is not competion based. Some call it reality based, and it is much more so than MT (In My Educated Opinion). Still FSA was intended to bring untrained masses of people up to a modicum of skill with limited resources and time. FSA prioritized "contact distance", which were the distances in which gunfights happened, according to the experiences of the founders and those whom they interviewed.

But FSA is also incomplete as viewed from today's perspective. Incomplete not to the degree that MT is, but incomplete in the sense that our world, society, dress styles, weapons, and time available for training has drastically changed from the hectic days of WW2.

If I was given a student who would likely be in a gunfight tonight, who had never shot a gun before, and I only had an hour and 50 rounds to train him to "kill or die", I would very likely use FSA model rather than MT. But his skill level would be limited and appropriate only for a small sphere of application. His training would not cover everything he needed to learn, only everything "he could learn" in the given situation.

Today we are not limited by this and we can aspire to greater skill levels. There seems to be an inherent patronizing inclination in FSA circles to minimize the need to train and practice. You hear things like, "All you ever need to do is point your finger", or ,"Once I show you this, you never need to train it again", etc., etc. That I think is the biggest failing of the FSA system. Do you guys think Bill Jordan, Charles Askins, and Jelly Bryce never trained? Or that Fairbairn never trained? Come on.

Another short-coming of the FSA system is no direct attention to carry methods or to drawing the weapon. This is an assumption of the era. Men wore different clothes and carried their guns in different ways than we do today. And the thinking was not to rely on the fast draw, but to have the gun in hand before the fight. 

Perhaps the gents assumed that getting the gun out was not something they needed to mention. Before anyone gets defensive, I have read all the books and the only books in the time-frame that discusses the draw are Jordan's book and McGivern's book. Can you say you will always have the gun in hand before the fight starts? Maybe...but that is highly dependant on knowing the fight will come...an error also seen in MT systemology.

I think any martial system worthy of consideration needs to be maintained and practiced continually, within reason, but continually. Taking a class in 1976 and then never touching a gun again, but thinking you are a dangerous pistolero at anything other than belly button distances, is simply stupid. If any of you guys disagree with this, I would ask why are you even reading this since you already know everything?

I would challenge any of the "all you gotta do - never need to train" crowd to not touch a gun again for two years and then come out to a force on force session and beat the pants off everyone else there who will have been maintained their skills at a reasonable level. There is no magic pill or free lunch for the lazy man, or couch warrior. Want to be good?  Its easy.  Put in the time and get good.

So where does that leave us in the contraversy that will never die? That it is only a contraversy for the agenda-pushers. MT was based on games. That is a historical fact. FSA was based on bringing unskilled shooters up to a minimum level with limited resources. That is also a historical fact.

As far as us? With the time and availability of resources, we can use applicable portions of both systems and adding our own discoveries, and rediscoveries, as well as a hearty dose of skepticism and testing vis-a-vis force on force, we can arrive at a very workable and easily maintained system of gunfighting that does not include or exclude anything solely on tradition, the desire to win a game, or caters to the  laziness of the trainees.

Rather, as Bruce Lee did with hand to hand combat, we assimilate what is useful and move on.
__________________
Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA, Inc.
One Source Tactical
info@suarezinternational.com
Office 928-776-4492

Spaniard by Heritage
Cuban by Birth
Christian by Grace
Free Man by Choice