Brothers-
I suppose I should be glad you all are watching the clip and discussing, even if it is to pick it apart and dismiss it based on absolutely no context or foundational understanding of what’s going on. I am the dude in the video, so allow me to add some context. Graham, I appreciate the well written and thoughtful posts you contribute throughout this forum. Know that even though some of my following comments may come across as caustic in this limited communication medium, I mean them with all respect for a fellow brother who puts himself in harms way.
First, since Graham made a comment as to “serious credibility issues regarding the instructor staff and the origins/development of these techniques” let me address this issue first. I have been a cop for a large agency for 30 years, including three as a full time firearms instructor. For the last 16 I have been a patrol sergeant, where I plan to stay until I retire, because I enjoy it very much. Several of my camrades have been shot and killed or wounded in the line of duty. I have been shot at and done my share of shooting back, and along the way I’ve learned a few things I try to share with the next generation. As far as the SI instructor cadre, I have not met a more solid and professional group of guys anywhere. A variety of backgrounds and experiences all contribute to the development of the techniques and philosophies we teach and all are fight focused and proven in either real life or Force on Force.
Papa Zero, I appreciate your mention of the importance of FOF for proving theory, but I can tell you without reservation, when tested in FOF, when the skill set shown in the video is used in the situation for which it is intended, it is the only way to win against any competent adversary. More on that in a bit.
Second, some foundational information that should help can be found in this article by me,
WARRIOR TALK NEWS - The Reactive Draw Stroke
Third, please realize this is a single drill for a very specific skill set meant for a specific situation. It is being shot on steel, so to avoid splatter, we were running it at ten yards, so don’t be too critical of misses. The situation for which is intended is more like ten feet. When you criticize something you do not understand, by applying a limited perspective, and paint it as worthless with a broad brush, you do a disservice to the study and make us all look bad; so let’s get past that, ask some good questions and see what good we can find.
The Meat of the Issue: There are two kinds of gunfights: Proactive and Reactive. Which side has the initiative determines which you are in. There are two priorities in a gunfight: Not getting shot, and stopping the threat with effective hits. Which priority is most important in any given moment is again determined by initiative.
QUESTION: How many cops get taught this simple, foundational understanding of the situations they may face? How many “Combat firearms schools” teach it?
PROBLEM: When one does not have an understanding of the dynamics involved, nor a complete set of skill sets to effectively deal with the spectrum of situations they may face, bad things happen.
Proactive fights (when we, by skill or luck, get to shoot first) are slower, our gun is already drawn, maybe even aimed, we have superior numbers, cover, superior position, and most importantly, we have the initiative. The priority of a Proactive fight is to make the hit. Traditional combat firearms training (for LE as well as civilian) focuses primarily on the Proactive skill sets. As a result, we win our proactive gunfights with efficiency (most of the time).
But, when the fight is reactive (the bad guy starts shooting first) what happens? We miss and we get shot.
The national hit percentage in police shootings is 18-35%. Let’s take the high number. This means 65 out of every 100 rounds fired by police in actual shootings MISS! My agency just had a shooting in which 140 rounds were fired at a BG who was shooting at officers while running away. He got hit TWICE! The point is, we are already missing while trying to use the “proven” techniques everyone gets taught. And, we are getting shot. Why?
QUESTION: In a Reactive fight, which priority of the gunfight becomes the priority, getting hits, or not getting shot?
The officer in the Dade video that Exo is praising for “standing his ground and doing what needed to be done” GOT SHOT! THREE TIMES! Anyone who uses that as an example of the right way to win a gunfight has obviously never been shot. Most people I know who have been shot (and lived), if given the chance, would do something different to avoid that next time. Thankfully, he’s going to live, but if he was killed, would be asking why and what could we do to keep it from happening again? I’ve had friends die, and I’ve already asked that question. I hope you have, too.
QUESTION: In that moment when not getting shot is the priority, what must we do?
ANSWER: MOVE! FAST!
And thus we arrive at the divergence between the traditional, proactive concept philosophy and what SI teaches. And here is where a dedicated effort with FOF will open one’s mind, at least to asking some more questions, because what FOF Reactive gunfights will show you is how fast one needs to move, and to what angles, to avoid being shot. One will also quickly discover that to stand still and try to beat an already drawn gun will get you shot. Notice the two Dade officers who did not get shot MOVED FIRST. Their intuition told them not getting shot was the priority, and indeed it was.
Most who have posted seem to think the video clip in question is showing a technique for blading the body to make it a smaller target. That has nothing to do with it. The reason we teach how to hit with one hand is because you cannot move as fast as you need to with both hands on the gun. We move fastest going in the direction our feet are pointed, so the orientation of the body to the target is simply a result of the angle of movement. As the angle of attack becomes more direct to the target, less “blading” is presented. The situation will dictate the angle of attack.
Of course, movement only buys you a moment. We need to get hits on target AFAP to stop the threat.
QUESTION: If you could get hits while moving, instead of waiting until you stop moving (and thus becoming easier to hit) wouldn’t you?
An SI maxim: “The situation dictates strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate technique. Technique never dictates anything.”
When one tries to force fit their favorite technique to a situation for which it is not the solution, bad things happen.
The Dade video is a perfect example of the results of trying to employ Proactive skills sets to a Reactive situation. And this was the result of three against one, less than competent adversary. Is there a warrior here that is not confident that if you had the initiative against three people with their backs turned to you and unaware of your presence, you could not hit them all before they could react?
Those cops were lucky. Do you want to be lucky, or good?
Stay Ready to Win!
Dave Sauer
Gunfighting Inc.
Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
.................
