I noticed a thin response to the competetive shooting thread, but as a spin off of that:

For those who shoot regularly, competetive or not, how do you induce stress or pressure so that you are preparing for the type of shooting you expect to be doing in the 'real deal'

Example:

Trap/Skeet shooters simulate the competition events to prepare for the real deal.

LEO use stages of fire that require magezine changes with time pressure, low light....

I hunt, so I tend to try and emphasis accuracy shooting on slow and fast targets because of the walking/running deer issue. How? Back to the trap/skeet shooting. It isn't perfect because of the spread shot, but it does address leads and holds. I can focus on point accuracy in static range shooting. Because of the lack of facilities and money, I don't know if my lead and hold training combines with my accuracy shooting until I am drawing a bead on the deer, but I do the best I can with what I got :)

How my instructors induce stress in firearms training...

-competition (the stress of getting beat)
-time limits (beat the clock)
-fines (on my SWAT team there is a $1.00 fine for each round that misses a human target)
-simunitions (theres NOTHING like getting shot at to induce stress), it has been suggested that paintball guns can provide this, but the advantage of simunitions is that the weapons are exactly like the real thing in terms of appearance and operation and can be holstered, manipulated, reloaded and employed like the real thing.

I was hoping for a better response for the competitve shooting thread, but oh well.

When practicing for competitions, I try to simulate as much as possible the actual events. This would include everything from light levels, a shot timer, audio levels, and so on. The only thing missing is the referee. This way, when the events happen, I feel very prepared for them, and therefore, relaxed, not stressed. As for scores during practice, I treat each round of 20 shots as an individual score, and compare to previous scores and see who 'wins'.

I'll also keep a log including everything so that trends can be discovered. Even items such as wearing glasses or contacts, which shoes, what clothes, what was for breakfast and so on. If you're curious, I get around 2% higher scores wearing glasses versus contacts, 1-2% higher wearing low cut hiking boots. I guess these come more to the point of reducing, not inducing stress and pressure.

When shooting long distance, I put a lot of emphasis on the cold shot. For me that pressure not only helps me focus, but the results of that shot often sets the tone for the rest of that session.

Yeah, I was hoping for more posters on that thread too. I like your cold shot emphasis. In any real deal application, but especially SD situations that is the decisive shot....

I treat sparring along these lines too. I focus on 'winning' the first 30 seconds of sparring contact. I figure if I win that first contact, it is similar to the first clash of a real fight. After that it is a chance to experiment with stuff and enhance aspects of my fight skills.

Paul M

I was hoping for a better response for the competitve shooting thread, but oh well.

When practicing for competitions, I try to simulate as much as possible the actual events. This would include everything from light levels, a shot timer, audio levels, and so on. The only thing missing is the referee. This way, when the events happen, I feel very prepared for them, and therefore, relaxed, not stressed. As for scores during practice, I treat each round of 20 shots as an individual score, and compare to previous scores and see who 'wins'. Hmmm...sounds a lot like scenario training to me. We got into an in depth discussion about the importance of scenario training in self defense on another forum here. Im all for it.

I'll also keep a log including everything so that trends can be discovered. Even items such as wearing glasses or contacts, which shoes, what clothes, what was for breakfast and so on. If you're curious, I get around 2% higher scores wearing glasses versus contacts, 1-2% higher wearing low cut hiking boots. I guess these come more to the point of reducing, not inducing stress and pressure.

When shooting long distance, I put a lot of emphasis on the cold shot. For me that pressure not only helps me focus, but the results of that shot often sets the tone for the rest of that session.Sounds like excellent prep. work to me. I would only add the obvious statement that when it comes to the "real thing" you better be prepared to fight in whatever situation/clothing/eyewear/etc. you have.

Sounds like excellent prep. work to me. I would only add the obvious statement that when it comes to the "real thing" you better be prepared to fight in whatever situation/clothing/eyewear/etc. you have.

True, that portion was strictly relating to target practice, and shooting in competitions. When it comes to a self defense situation, I agree, be prepared for whatever your circumstances are.


I treat sparring along these lines too. I focus on 'winning' the first 30 seconds of sparring contact. I figure if I win that first contact, it is similar to the first clash of a real fight. After that it is a chance to experiment with stuff and enhance aspects of my fight skills.

For the Modern Pentathlon, in the fencing event, this is the way we fought. The bouts were to the first touch only, with a 60 second clock. There were no follow up points, just the next person in line to fight. It made it interesting because you got very different attacks than regular fencing where you go to 10 or 15 points.

-simunitions (theres NOTHING like getting shot at to induce stress), it has been suggested that paintball guns can provide this, but the advantage of simunitions is that the weapons are exactly like the real thing in terms of appearance and operation and can be holstered, manipulated, reloaded and employed like the real thing.

When you say simunitions are you talking about "Airsoft" type stuff?

For the Modern Pentathlon, in the fencing event, this is the way we fought. The bouts were to the first touch only, with a 60 second clock. There were no follow up points, just the next person in line to fight. It made it interesting because you got very different attacks than regular fencing where you go to 10 or 15 points.

Off topic, but I noticed that your profile mentioned systema. I was curious if you found that it blended with your fencing - off the piste - well or not. Systema, what little I know of it, seems to move alot like FMA's and softer kenpo movment styles.

When you say simunitions are you talking about "Airsoft" type stuff?

No, the simunitions company makes weapons, and conversion kits that fire paint pellets. Function like real weapons, feel like real weapons (some are converted real weapons). They fire, function and eject brass.

Off topic, but I noticed that your profile mentioned systema. I was curious if you found that it blended with your fencing - off the piste - well or not. Systema, what little I know of it, seems to move alot like FMA's and softer kenpo movment styles.

The quick answer is a qualified yes. When engaging your opponent in fencing, you can feel the energy and intent transmitted through the blade and/or body movements, and as in systema, work with the energy from there, not against it. The only slight negative part in the blending is that when you are fencing you are working in a very linear approach, whereas in systema, or any other art for that matter, the movements can be more lateral and circular. I sometimes fall into this trap at systema practice, and forget I can move to the side or around my training partner.

I have also found that systema is helping out with my shooting as well. With the breathing and relaxation, the scores have been improving. Before I started systema, I already knew about the importance of being relaxed when you are on the firing line. After I started, I began to realize all the tension I still had in my form that I hadn't noticed before. Get the tension out of your shooting form, and the 10 ring gets a lot bigger. This can tie into my earlier post in this thread about reducing stress and pressure for competition. When you can minimize the effects of these items, things just start to fall together.

I noticed a thin response to the competetive shooting thread, but as a spin off of that:

For those who shoot regularly, competetive or not, how do you induce stress or pressure so that you are preparing for the type of shooting you expect to be doing in the 'real deal'

Example:

Trap/Skeet shooters simulate the competition events to prepare for the real deal.

LEO use stages of fire that require magezine changes with time pressure, low light....

I hunt, so I tend to try and emphasis accuracy shooting on slow and fast targets because of the walking/running deer issue. How? Back to the trap/skeet shooting. It isn't perfect because of the spread shot, but it does address leads and holds. I can focus on point accuracy in static range shooting. Because of the lack of facilities and money, I don't know if my lead and hold training combines with my accuracy shooting until I am drawing a bead on the deer, but I do the best I can with what I got :)

VERY interesting thread!!! I've had discussions with people on this topic in the past and have gotten mixed results. My thread was based on 2 weapons- the gun and the knife, and which is the better weapon in a SD situation. I always went with the knife, due to the fact that its easier to hide, quicker to take out, easier to hide while holding in your hand, and it does not require you to aim or take up a stance in order to use it. I was against the gun, due to the fact that you mention here----how many people who are really "into" guns, can actually say that they train under stress, in low light and against something that is moving??? IMO, not that many. LEO and military did NOT count, due to the fact that they rely on their gun alot more than the average civilian does.

Mike

No, the simunitions company makes weapons, and conversion kits that fire paint pellets. Function like real weapons, feel like real weapons (some are converted real weapons). They fire, function and eject brass.
I like this idea.

Im not aware if they are available to the civilian market, but heres their site....

http://www.simunition.com/index.php

I always went with the knife, due to the fact that its easier to hide, quicker to take out, easier to hide while holding in your hand, and it does not require you to aim or take up a stance in order to use it. I was against the gun, due to the fact that you mention here----how many people who are really "into" guns, can actually say that they train under stress, in low light and against something that is moving??? IMO, not that many. LEO and military did NOT count, due to the fact that they rely on their gun alot more than the average civilian does.
Mike

MJS,
I would take the other side of this issue and say that the gun is the better weapon (Let's just stick with sidearms/pistols for this discussion) for many reasons.

Firstly, pistols are very easy to conceal and, I think quicker to aquire because of the holster. Fishing through your pocket for a blade will take just as long if not longer from my experience. For SD, concealing the weapon is the last thing I want to do, I WANT the bad guy to know that I am armed are willing to use that weapon, regardless of type, because it might get him to leave me alone. Concealing any weapon until you use it is an ambush and hard to defend in court. Knives don't require 'aiming' but they do require accuracy and focus. Plus the resultant damage/effect of a knife is not the ballistic damage, hydrostatic shot and audible stunner that a pistol shot can produce with much less effort relative to a knife. Also, pistols can be fired from as many varied stances or positions as any well delivered knife attacks. Check out Masaad Ayoob's relationship with West Coast KALI people to make a whole SD approach. As far as what other people who shot do, I really don't care because that only gives guys who do participate in pressure shooting the edge. There are many good practical competetive and SD programs out there that you can take home and use just like you can learn forms and drills for knife work.

My biggest reason for the gun as superior, though, is shear public perception. If you are a stand up guy, with a registered firearm, licensed user, regular practice/SD/Practical pistol league shooter, familiar with the USE OF FORCE/DEADLY FORCE laws in your area and maybe even have an NRA safety course certificate or two in your portfolio, you will look more credible in the average jury members/LEO/Attorneys perception than the 'knife freak' with over $500 invested in military and 'fighting' knives, along with hours of 'chop sockie' training.

I interviewed a local prosecuting attorney once for my MA school newsletter years back who was taking my instructors program at the community college, and the above is based on his imput for the article, not just my perceptions.

Can't ignore the other 'fight' of the court room. Remember, justified use of force is a defensible stance, not a judgement call for the cops on the scene. If you are covered in blood standing over a guy with a crusty knife in your hand, you will be questioned and possibly arrested UNTIL you can prove justified force. Same goes with a gun in the equation, though.

MJS,
I would take the other side of this issue and say that the gun is the better weapon (Let's just stick with sidearms/pistols for this discussion) for many reasons.

[quote]Firstly, pistols are very easy to conceal and, I think quicker to aquire because of the holster. Fishing through your pocket for a blade will take just as long if not longer from my experience. For SD, concealing the weapon is the last thing I want to do, I WANT the bad guy to know that I am armed are willing to use that weapon, regardless of type, because it might get him to leave me alone. Concealing any weapon until you use it is an ambush and hard to defend in court.

Guns are quicker?? How many people aside from LEO do you see walking around with a gun on their side?? I dont know where you live, but where I'm from, that is something that I've never seen. If the gun was concealed under a jacket, and a knife was clipped to my belt, are you honestly telling me that you could get your gun out before the knife was deployed?? As for the concealing, I was referring to a criminal using the knife. Also, as for concealing the weapons...keep in mind, that not every situation is going to warrant you pulling a gun or knife, so that is even more reason to use extra caution before pulling it out. Also, a gun has to be aimed. How many people practice against a moving target, in low light, under the stress of combat??? My guess would be not that many. You dont need to aim a knife like you would a gun.

Knives don't require 'aiming' but they do require accuracy and focus. Plus the resultant damage/effect of a knife is not the ballistic damage, hydrostatic shot and audible stunner that a pistol shot can produce with much less effort relative to a knife.

Knives require being accurate??? LOL!LOL! Come on man. A knife can be effective on any part of the body. You can give a knife to a 3y/o and they can be dangerous if they dont want to give it back to you.

Also, pistols can be fired from as many varied stances or positions as any well delivered knife attacks.

Yup, and in order for it to even be effective, it has to be pointing at its target, whereas a knife, no matter how its held, can cut you.

Check out Masaad Ayoob's relationship with West Coast KALI people to make a whole SD approach. As far as what other people who shot do, I really don't care because that only gives guys who do participate in pressure shooting the edge. There are many good practical competetive and SD programs out there that you can take home and use just like you can learn forms and drills for knife work.

I'm sure there are many programs that are available for the public to take. The question is, how many actually take them???? Your average "Joe" will most likely take a basic gun class at the local range, and that'll be the end of it, aside from the occassional target practice. Its all a matter of how much you want your training to grow.

My biggest reason for the gun as superior, though, is shear public perception. If you are a stand up guy, with a registered firearm, licensed user, regular practice/SD/Practical pistol league shooter, familiar with the USE OF FORCE/DEADLY FORCE laws in your area and maybe even have an NRA safety course certificate or two in your portfolio, you will look more credible in the average jury members/LEO/Attorneys perception than the 'knife freak' with over $500 invested in military and 'fighting' knives, along with hours of 'chop sockie' training.

Just had a cop/suspect shooting in a city in the state that I live in. The first thing out of the guys family was, "Why did they have to kill him? Why didnt they just mace him?" I get the impression that anyone who owns a gun, has a permit, etc. thinks that they can just pull it out any time they want. Not the case. As I said above, the situation has to warrant the gun being pulled out. Even cops are required to use as much force as whats being used against them.

Sure is a gun going to look better than a knife? Probably. But the fact of the matter is, is that they are BOTH deadly weapons.


Can't ignore the other 'fight' of the court room. Remember, justified use of force is a defensible stance, not a judgement call for the cops on the scene. If you are covered in blood standing over a guy with a crusty knife in your hand, you will be questioned and possibly arrested UNTIL you can prove justified force. Same goes with a gun in the equation, though.

Let me ask you this. If your life or the life of a loved one depended on it, would you pick up a knife and use it?? I sure know that I would. If someone breaks into my house at 2am, I'm going to pick up anything I can, be it a knife, gun, stick, chair, etc. and I'm going to use it! Period!!! I didnt invite this guy into my house, so he deserves what he gets. I guess it'll have to get sorted out in the court.

Mike

The way I see it, if the knife was a "superior" weapon, Id have one on my duty belt instead of a Glock… The "problem" with the gun is improper training and a belief that having a gun means you only need to train marksmanship skills and no unarmed ones. If incorporated into a good CQB system the gun is as effective close up as a knife.

The knife is an offensive weapon by nature, you have to make contact, slash and stab to make it work. The gun can be used defensively by gaining distance, getting cover and using the range advantage to deliver force when necessary but still be a creditable threat at range. The important thing for the operator to learn is to survive the contact range fight, gain distance and get cover. This is an important distinction when it comes to the court battle that will inevitably come after a deadly force situation.

The problem with ANY weapon is who has the intent and initiative? If you have a knife (sheathed) and I have a gun (holstered) and I decide to shoot you and you aren’t expecting it, I’m going to have the advantage because you are going to have to catch up with me (basic OODA stuff). If you already have a knife in your hand and are within 21’ of me and I decide to attack, you have the advantage of already being armed. Id be willing to bet that if you had a knife in your pocket and I had my G27 in a good holster, with my jacket on and unzipped and I was AWARE of you as a threat, I could beat you to it. If you had the knife ready in your hand, it would be a different story. This all cycles back to; tactics, awareness, conditioning, mindset and preparedness being more important than weapons, techniques or styles of martial arts.

The bottom line is that if you are LEGALLY JUSTIFIED in using deadly force it really dosent matter if you use a rock, knife, gun, rocket launcher or tac-nuke to the penal law sid of the house. The civil law side can be a different story.

The way I see it, if the knife was a "superior" weapon, Id have one on my duty belt instead of a Glock… The "problem" with the gun is improper training and a belief that having a gun means you only need to train marksmanship skills and no unarmed ones. If incorporated into a good CQB system the gun is as effective close up as a knife.

The key word here is on your duty belt. And that was just my point. As I said before, you only see LEO with guns exposed, not your average everyday citizen. As for a good CQB system...and thats my point exactly. How many "Average" people do you see doing that? Now, compare that number to a LEO. As for it being effective up close---you still have to be aiming it at the person for it to be effective. The knife can cut you regardless of how its held.

The knife is an offensive weapon by nature, you have to make contact, slash and stab to make it work. The gun can be used defensively by gaining distance, getting cover and using the range advantage to deliver force when necessary but still be a creditable threat at range. The important thing for the operator to learn is to survive the contact range fight, gain distance and get cover. This is an important distinction when it comes to the court battle that will inevitably come after a deadly force situation.

Sure the gun has a huge advantage due to the fact that it has that reach advantage. The problem is getting that distance.

The problem with ANY weapon is who has the intent and initiative? If you have a knife (sheathed) and I have a gun (holstered) and I decide to shoot you and you aren’t expecting it, I’m going to have the advantage because you are going to have to catch up with me (basic OODA stuff). If you already have a knife in your hand and are within 21’ of me and I decide to attack, you have the advantage of already being armed. Id be willing to bet that if you had a knife in your pocket and I had my G27 in a good holster, with my jacket on and unzipped and I was AWARE of you as a threat, I could beat you to it. If you had the knife ready in your hand, it would be a different story. This all cycles back to; tactics, awareness, conditioning, mindset and preparedness being more important than weapons, techniques or styles of martial arts.

You mention having your jacket unzipped. I'm sure in this case you're referring to the LEO role. But what about the "Average" citizen? Goes back to that concealment thing again. There was a video out. If I remember the name correctly it was 'Surviving edged weapons.' Pretty much geared to the LEO, but it showed how quickly the guy with the knife could close on the guy armed with the gun. Having that distance is an important factor. Unfortunately, its not always an option.

The bottom line is that if you are LEGALLY JUSTIFIED in using deadly force it really dosent matter if you use a rock, knife, gun, rocket launcher or tac-nuke to the penal law sid of the house. The civil law side can be a different story.

Good point. However, just because the LEO has a gun, it doesnt make it ok for them to use it in every situation. Considering that there are other options, such as mace, baton, and less lethal weapons such a a taser, pepperball gun and bean bag gun, even the LEO has to be more aware of what they do in a situation.

Mike

The key word here is on your duty belt. And that was just my point. As I said before, you only see LEO with guns exposed, not your average everyday citizen. As for a good CQB system...and thats my point exactly. How many "Average" people do you see doing that? Now, compare that number to a LEO. As for it being effective up close---you still have to be aiming it at the person for it to be effective. The knife can cut you regardless of how its held.Yes, but with a knife you HAVE to get up close. While many LEO shootings occur up close its because we have to get up close to talk with, apprehend and/or search people. When I am aware of a person as an armed threat, Im at a distance behind cover.

Sure the gun has a huge advantage due to the fact that it has that reach advantage. The problem is getting that distance. Yes,thats why the gun should be viewed as a tool like any other, it should be incorporated into a fighting "system", but if you cant get distance, you should be aware of placing obstacles between you and your threat...cars, trees, fences, tables etc.

You mention having your jacket unzipped. I'm sure in this case you're referring to the LEO role. But what about the "Average" citizen? Goes back to that concealment thing again. There was a video out. If I remember the name correctly it was 'Surviving edged weapons.' Pretty much geared to the LEO, but it showed how quickly the guy with the knife could close on the guy armed with the gun. Having that distance is an important factor. Unfortunately, its not always an option. No, I mean in a civillian mode...with my Glock in its fobus holster, with my street jacket over it, unzipped, aware of you as a threat and you with a weapon concealed somewhere. And in that movie...they show Dan Innosanto hacking up cops in a scenario. I say that the cops were either: a.set up for failure and/or b. incorporating bad tactics. I believe the scenario was a suspicious man in a closed building. The cops approached close to talk with the suspect and got whacked. Now either a. the scenario wasnt explained clearly (i.e.this is a burglar...theres a forced door... theres a stolen car out front....etc.) or b.the cops used poor tactics in this scenario by entering a possible burglary in progress call alone and trying to interview the suspect. Its an example of tactics being important, not the superiority of a weapon or style.

Another gun/knife aspect is the agressiveness,speed and strength issues required in a knife attack, not everybody has the qualities to pull it off. Almost everybody can pull a trigger. If you were being attacked by a person with ANY weapon and you didnt have a weapon already in your hand you are going to get struck before you can get to it...its not about weapons, its about OODA loop. If I get killed by a knifer, its not because the knife was "better" than my gun. If I had a knife too would I have had a better chance??? I dont think so. (Awareness, mindset, conditioning, tactics, weapon skills)

Good point. However, just because the LEO has a gun, it doesnt make it ok for them to use it in every situation. Considering that there are other options, such as mace, baton, and less lethal weapons such a a taser, pepperball gun and bean bag gun, even the LEO has to be more aware of what they do in a situation.
MikeIm not clear on your point here... I never said they did. But LEO's need these tools because we have to apprehend people as a part of the job. Civillians should be focused on survival and escape.

My take on your position is that you are more critical of the responsibility and quality of gun training more than the weapon itself.

Again, I don't care what other people do in training, and I don't care about the comparison between the 'gun community' vs the 'knife community' because I think that it doesn't really exist.

I do know how I train, and I would train with a pistol using the same principles and goals as I would with any other weapon.

Let'st just compare weapons based on range, both in the hands of a well trained effectively developed, and responsible user:

At grappling range, if there is no time for deployment, both weapons become a liabilty, because now the issue of weapon retention comes into play. You will have to devote some of your fighting assests to preotecting/retaining the weapon. BUT, if the knife is deployed at grappling range, the threat of hurting yourself is higher than with a gun simply because of the grip control of a pistol over a knife. Both weapons can be used to hit, but the damage of a knife at this range will not "STOP" the attacker as quicly as the damage caused by the pistol, I am talking complete range of possibility here NOT the stopping power of cal. or the opponents ability to fight on. Side by side, the gun has more potential stopping power than a knife will ever have.

Working out the max effective range, the knife - as an effective fighting weapon - stops at physcial contact range. The pistol continues to be effective at farther ranges, thus allowing the user to have more time and distance.

Your point about what you have seen is different from what is possible for realistic, solid SD pistol training.

Your question about if I would use a knife to defend my family or loved ones, He** yes, but if there were a choice between gun or knife, which would you choose? What would you tell to a 5' petite woman if she asked you which weapon was the best choice for her? I would say gun.

Any weapon has to be part of a total SD system. Students are responsible for their training, and there are crappy students in any school. But, weapon vs weapon comparison only, the gun wins for me.

Yes, but with a knife you HAVE to get up close. While many LEO shootings occur up close its because we have to get up close to talk with, apprehend and/or search people. When I am aware of a person as an armed threat, Im at a distance behind cover.

True. But how can you tell if the suspect is going to be armed?

Yes,thats why the gun should be viewed as a tool like any other, it should be incorporated into a fighting "system", but if you cant get distance, you should be aware of placing obstacles between you and your threat...cars, trees, fences, tables etc.

Good point!

No, I mean in a civillian mode...with my Glock in its fobus holster, with my street jacket over it, unzipped, aware of you as a threat and you with a weapon concealed somewhere. And in that movie...they show Dan Innosanto hacking up cops in a scenario. I say that the cops were either: a.set up for failure and/or b. incorporating bad tactics. I believe the scenario was a suspicious man in a closed building. The cops approached close to talk with the suspect and got whacked. Now either a. the scenario wasnt explained clearly (i.e.this is a burglar...theres a forced door... theres a stolen car out front....etc.) or b.the cops used poor tactics in this scenario by entering a possible burglary in progress call alone and trying to interview the suspect. Its an example of tactics being important, not the superiority of a weapon or style.

Well, I'm not sure of the quality of the movie..I didnt script it, I just watched it. IMO, the point that they were showing is that the gun with the knife closed the distance at a quicker pace. The suspect was advancing forward, which in turn gave the LEO one more thing to do in addition to taking out the gun, aiming on that moving target and finally shooting.

Another gun/knife aspect is the agressiveness,speed and strength issues required in a knife attack, not everybody has the qualities to pull it off. Almost everybody can pull a trigger.

I agree to a point. In the movie, it was showing a guy (Inosanto) who has exceptional knife training. I dont think though that you need to be on his level to use a knife effectively. Even if you watch prison movies...and yeah, its still a movie, but the idea is still there. Its amazing as to how quick these guys can take someone out with a shank.

Im not clear on your point here... I never said they did. But LEO's need these tools because we have to apprehend people as a part of the job. Civillians should be focused on survival and escape.

My point was on the part where you said Legally Justified. I realize that a gun is part of the package with a LEO. However, the rules dont change for them. They still have to be legally justified in using that gun just like a civilian would. I'm sure that after countless wrongfull shootings, that would be the reason for the less lethal weapons that many depts. use today.

Mike

"And in that movie...they show Dan Innosanto hacking up cops in a scenario. I say that the cops were either: a.set up for failure and/or b. incorporating bad tactics. I believe the scenario was a suspicious man in a closed building. The cops approached close to talk with the suspect and got whacked. Now either a. the scenario wasnt explained clearly (i.e.this is a burglar...theres a forced door... theres a stolen car out front....etc.) or b.the cops used poor tactics in this scenario by entering a possible burglary in progress call alone and trying to interview the suspect. Its an example of tactics being important, not the superiority of a weapon or style."

If I am reading this right the scene is from 'Surviving Edged Weapons' by Pallidin Press and D. Inosanto is posing as a suspicious person for the LEO to interview/detain effectively. The point of the video/scenario is to train LEO's/Civlians of the lethality and speed that a knife attack can be delivered by.

The issue that we are discussing is our opinions about which is the better self defense weapon. I agree whole heartedly that weapons are not as important as good tactics, but the point was not about training/tactics but weapon comparison.

[quote]At grappling range, if there is no time for deployment, both weapons become a liabilty, because now the issue of weapon retention comes into play. You will have to devote some of your fighting assests to preotecting/retaining the weapon. BUT, if the knife is deployed at grappling range, the threat of hurting yourself is higher than with a gun simply because of the grip control of a pistol over a knife. Both weapons can be used to hit, but the damage of a knife at this range will not "STOP" the attacker as quicly as the damage caused by the pistol, I am talking complete range of possibility here NOT the stopping power of cal. or the opponents ability to fight on. Side by side, the gun has more potential stopping power than a knife will ever have.

Sure, both weapons can be used to hit, and I agree with that. With a gun, if your finger is on that trigger, you also run the risk of getting it broke if the guy is able to do a successful disarm. Again, even in close range, the fact remains that the gun still has to be pointing at the guy in order for it to be 100% effective. Many times, its the multiple hits that take the toll with the knife. Sure the gun has better stopping power, but in close, I have to go with the knife.

Working out the max effective range, the knife - as an effective fighting weapon - stops at physcial contact range. The pistol continues to be effective at farther ranges, thus allowing the user to have more time and distance.

Agreed.

Your point about what you have seen is different from what is possible for realistic, solid SD pistol training.

And how many people actually go that extra step???

Your question about if I would use a knife to defend my family or loved ones, He** yes, but if there were a choice between gun or knife, which would you choose? What would you tell to a 5' petite woman if she asked you which weapon was the best choice for her? I would say gun.

And just like most weapons that women carry, they are usually kept where??? In her purse. Thats like when I hear guys say, "Hell, I'd just shoot him!" I say to that, "OK, well where is your gun now?" The answer----well, its in my truck. Or its at home. Well...What the hell good is it gonna do you there???? If anything I'd have her use her keys as a weapon. Those are already in her hand, or at least they should be, rather than fumble for them when shes already at her car.

Any weapon has to be part of a total SD system. Students are responsible for their training, and there are crappy students in any school. But, weapon vs weapon comparison only, the gun wins for me.

Well, everybody is going to have their weapon of choice. I like the knife because I train in the FMA. Its simple to use, very effective and doesnt require a huge amount of skill to use.

Mike

"And in that movie...they show Dan Innosanto hacking up cops in a scenario. I say that the cops were either: a.set up for failure and/or b. incorporating bad tactics. I believe the scenario was a suspicious man in a closed building. The cops approached close to talk with the suspect and got whacked. Now either a. the scenario wasnt explained clearly (i.e.this is a burglar...theres a forced door... theres a stolen car out front....etc.) or b.the cops used poor tactics in this scenario by entering a possible burglary in progress call alone and trying to interview the suspect. Its an example of tactics being important, not the superiority of a weapon or style."

If I am reading this right the scene is from 'Surviving Edged Weapons' by Pallidin Press and D. Inosanto is posing as a suspicious person for the LEO to interview/detain effectively. The point of the video/scenario is to train LEO's/Civlians of the lethality and speed that a knife attack can be delivered by.

The issue that we are discussing is our opinions about which is the better self defense weapon. I agree whole heartedly that weapons are not as important as good tactics, but the point was not about training/tactics but weapon comparison.

Agreed!! Even though the topic is about which weapon is better for SD, the fact remains that the knife is often under-estimated, and IMO, this tape shows a good job of that!

Mike

True. But how can you tell if the suspect is going to be armed?
Sometimes he has one in his hand, sometimes radio tells me that the suspect is armed, sometimes the weapon is close by.

Well, I'm not sure of the quality of the movie..I didnt script it, I just watched it. IMO, the point that they were showing is that the gun with the knife closed the distance at a quicker pace. The suspect was advancing forward, which in turn gave the LEO one more thing to do in addition to taking out the gun, aiming on that moving target and finally shooting.
Thats whats known as the 21'rule or the Tueller Drill. It shows how an armed subject can close in on an unarmed person before they can access a weapon and deploy it. That drill goes for any weapon not only knife vs. gun.



I agree to a point. In the movie, it was showing a guy (Inosanto) who has exceptional knife training. I dont think though that you need to be on his level to use a knife effectively. Even if you watch prison movies...and yeah, its still a movie, but the idea is still there. Its amazing as to how quick these guys can take someone out with a shank.
Agreed...but its shows the tactical superiority of ambush, not the tecnical superiority of a weapon system.


My point was on the part where you said Legally Justified. I realize that a gun is part of the package with a LEO. However, the rules dont change for them. They still have to be legally justified in using that gun just like a civilian would. I'm sure that after countless wrongfull shootings, that would be the reason for the less lethal weapons that many depts. use today.

Mike
Yes, but I contend that the gun gives you a better chance of ending a situation without having to use it than a knife does.

If I am reading this right the scene is from 'Surviving Edged Weapons' by Pallidin Press and D. Inosanto is posing as a suspicious person for the LEO to interview/detain effectively. The point of the video/scenario is to train LEO's/Civlians of the lethality and speed that a knife attack can be delivered by.
Well, in that case I say "welcome to police work". If the other guy beats your OODA cycle and decides to draw any weapon you are in a world of $%!^. He could have whipped out a sawed off 12 ga. with as much success.

Agreed!! Even though the topic is about which weapon is better for SD, the fact remains that the knife is often under-estimated, and IMO, this tape shows a good job of that!

Mike

I would agree that the general public and MArtists can be guilty of underestimating the effectiveness of a knife, but relative to a gun, it loses the superiority battle for me.

The scenario only shows that D. Inosanto is better skilled as an ambusher and is a master of his weapon relative to the LEO walking into the scenario. Remember, D.Inosanto - that the point of video production - has spent far more man hours training his chosen weapon and tactics than the LEO walking into the scenario - his role is as teacher because he is the master. If it were a CONTEST between a veteran cop/firearms/defensive tactics instructor and D. Inosanto, I would be interested in seeing the results.

Interesting debate. I love how all the debates here seem to end up in a this vs. that form. Seems to me that the whole thing boils down to a firearm having the advantage of being a ranged weapon and not requiring much strength or, I to say it, training to be effective. I do think that a knife is easier to conceal, more acceptable to society, faster to deploy, more versitel(sp) and even more safe.

I would agree that the general public and MArtists can be guilty of underestimating the effectiveness of a knife, but relative to a gun, it loses the superiority battle for me.

[quote]The scenario only shows that D. Inosanto is better skilled as an ambusher and is a master of his weapon relative to the LEO walking into the scenario. Remember, D.Inosanto - that the point of video production - has spent far more man hours training his chosen weapon and tactics than the LEO walking into the scenario - his role is as teacher because he is the master. If it were a CONTEST between a veteran cop/firearms/defensive tactics instructor and D. Inosanto, I would be interested in seeing the results.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm seeing this as you're saying that the only reason Inosanto 'won' so to speak, is because he is a master at using the knife??

Mike

Interesting debate. I love how all the debates here seem to end up in a this vs. that form. Seems to me that the whole thing boils down to a firearm having the advantage of being a ranged weapon and not requiring much strength or, I to say it, training to be effective. I do think that a knife is easier to conceal, more acceptable to society, faster to deploy, more versitel(sp) and even more safe.

A gun doesnt require much training??? Requires more training than a knife does.

Mike

Interesting debate. I love how all the debates here seem to end up in a this vs. that form. Seems to me that the whole thing boils down to a firearm having the advantage of being a ranged weapon and not requiring much strength or, I to say it, training to be effective. I do think that a knife is easier to conceal, more acceptable to society, faster to deploy, more versitel(sp) and even more safe.
I can agree with most of that up to the "more acceptable" part. I think a hacked up BG could go worse for you than a BG shot by a legally owned gun.

Sometimes he has one in his hand, sometimes radio tells me that the suspect is armed, sometimes the weapon is close by.

Then again, thats a luxury. Unfortunately there are many times when they are walking into an unknown situation.


Agreed...but its shows the tactical superiority of ambush, not the tecnical superiority of a weapon system.

True. Then again, any time a cop goes to a call, the risk of ambush is always there.


mike

I can agree with most of that up to the "more acceptable" part. I think a hacked up BG could go worse for you than a BG shot by a legally owned gun.

You're right. It probably wouldnt look too good in court. But did those NYPD officers have to fill that guy with bullet holes?? I'm pretty sure that was NY, but regardless of where it took place, the fact remains that that guy took multiple gun shots.

Mike

Seems to me that the whole thread has taken a turn...It started out as a "how do you train to shoot under pressure" thread I thought. But I dont mind if you dont mind....as long as it remains friendly ill take a this vs. that discussion.

Seems to me that the whole thread has taken a turn...It started out as a "how do you train to shoot under pressure" thread I thought. But I dont mind if you dont mind....as long as it remains friendly ill take a this vs. that discussion.

LOL! Yeah, I know, it did take quite the turn. Then again, most threads on here do that!!! I guess I was the one who made it take the turn. Where was i going with that first post I made??? Just used that past thread on a different forum as a basis. That thread was solely about gun vs. knife and whats the better weapon. Seems to me that the majority of people who shoot, only do so under no stress. You're LEO and military are in a different category due to the nature of the job. However, if someone was looking to use the gun as a SD weapon, IMO, having some stress is a good thing. I guess that is how the knife thing came into play here.

I dont mind either, though, like I said, it did get off track. The thread on the other forum went on for more than 10 pages!!!

Again, which ever way this one goes, is fine with me!

Mike

So, if I'm reading this correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm seeing this as you're saying that the only reason Inosanto 'won' so to speak, is because he is a master at using the knife??

Mike


No, I am saying that Inosanto 'won' because he was a master of his chosen weapon AND tactics. Again, weapon vs. weapon, all other things being equal, the gun is the superior weapon.

Like I said, he is a master (referring to understanding and application of his art/weapon) within the scenario acting as an instructor to teach students (in this case LEO) who are less skilled than he with their art/weapon system. This does not make the knife superior as a weapon. It does mean that D.Inosanto is better skilled at using it effectively than the LEO in the scenario. They are there to learn from mistakes, he is there to expose good and bad tactical choices on their part. If he 'won' it was based on skill.

Then again, thats a luxury. Unfortunately there are many times when they are walking into an unknown situation.




True. Then again, any time a cop goes to a call, the risk of ambush is always there.


mike
All absolutely true....thats why police are focusing on tactics these days. There is no weapon that will give you victory every time. You try to get a position of advantage, stay alert and take control. Sometimes its just a $@!& sandwitch and you have to take a bite....you do the best you can.

LOL! Yeah, I know, it did take quite the turn. Then again, most threads on here do that!!! I guess I was the one who made it take the turn. Where was i going with that first post I made??? Just used that past thread on a different forum as a basis. That thread was solely about gun vs. knife and whats the better weapon. Seems to me that the majority of people who shoot, only do so under no stress. You're LEO and military are in a different category due to the nature of the job. However, if someone was looking to use the gun as a SD weapon, IMO, having some stress is a good thing. I guess that is how the knife thing came into play here.

I dont mind either, though, like I said, it did get off track. The thread on the other forum went on for more than 10 pages!!!

Again, which ever way this one goes, is fine with me!

Mike
:asian:

It seems that regardless of your weapon of choice, your situational awareness, and your knowledge of your weapon will help determine your actions. To increase that situational awareness for yourself, training in different scenarios, in different settings would be beneficial. At a shooting range that's being built near me, they are installing a two story, tactical shoot house, complete with low light cameras, and reconfigurable walls. I'm not in law enforcement or the military, but I enjoy shooting and I can't wait to take the classes there. Unfortunately, a lot of people once they buy a gun and shoot a few rounds with it, think they know how to effectively use it, and don't seek out items like this.

"Seems to me that the majority of people who shoot, only do so under no stress. You're LEO and military are in a different category due to the nature of the job. However, if someone was looking to use the gun as a SD weapon, IMO, having some stress is a good thing."

Most, if not all of the people I know who shoot regularly use stress/scenario training to prep for their chosen shooting venue. I would say that it is the same as the 'pressure' drills of FMA/MA training like sparring and the like. You have to simulate - within safety measures - the type of application you are expecting to honestly be confident that you could be effective. Regardless of weapon or empty hand tools, training principles of devoting the right precentage of training to technical skill/tactical/strategic applications are important to the complete and appropriate training at each skill level.

It seems that regardless of your weapon of choice, your situational awareness, and your knowledge of your weapon will help determine your actions. To increase that situational awareness for yourself, training in different scenarios, in different settings would be beneficial. At a shooting range that's being built near me, they are installing a two story, tactical shoot house, complete with low light cameras, and reconfigurable walls. I'm not in law enforcement or the military, but I enjoy shooting and I can't wait to take the classes there. Unfortunately, a lot of people once they buy a gun and shoot a few rounds with it, think they know how to effectively use it, and don't seek out items like this.

Segue back to the original point! Beautifully done. I think your point about casual or hobby shooters is true for a lot of Martial Arts disciplines. There are people in non ballistic MA's that don't understand the full range of effectiveness or application of their techniques because they are 'floor masters' just like there are 'range experts' in the shooting world.

I wonder if MJS could offer some knife drills/scenarios that he uses and we could compare or even steal the principles being applied to shooting drills - or even find a way of combining the drills to create a continuum response that incoporates both weapons and tactical goals.

A gun doesnt require much training??? Requires more training than a knife does.

Mike

Those educated in firearms understand the complicated nature of PROPER operation, but the average street thug or even child with no training at all can point and pull a trigger. There is little defense for such an attack, but untrained man with a knife can attack and anyone can use their hands to obsturct out of instinct. For the knife wielder to be effective he needs to know that the edge can cut any body part not just the throat or abdomin, which is where the untrained center all their stabs (the attack most inexperienced knifers seem to restrict themselves to). It takes considerably less training for an average untrained person to effectively attack an average untrained person with a gun than the same situation with a knife.



I can agree with most of that up to the "more acceptable" part. I think a hacked up BG could go worse for you than a BG shot by a legally owned gun.


That's true., I was looking at it in terms of public perception of possession. No one gives me a second glance if I have a tac. folder, but people would watch me like a hawk if I had a gun.

It is ironic that this firearms and training issue is still in effect. Historically, crossbowman HATED musketeers because Musketeers could be trained to combat effectiveness in obsenely short periods of time relative to the training that Crossbowman underwent. Before that, longbowmen HATED crossbowman for the same reasons. Technology is threatening to tradition because it does exactly what it is suppose to, it acts as a force multiplier or equalizer (remember the pistol). Over time, technology - effectively applied to a tactical scheme - becomes common place because it works. When the next advancement comes the new traditionalists will be suspicious. Look at the evolution of computers/lasers/communications in the modern battle field and some of the reliability issues that critics use.

[/QUOTE]No one gives me a second glance if I have a tac. folder, but people would watch me like a hawk if I had a gun.[/QUOTE]


It depends on the size/carry of the weapon. I had a guest instructor walk into my class one day, do his intro in a polo shirt and Khakis w/his whole body in plain view of the students. When he drew his .380 smith from an inside the belt holster, they were all shocked beyond words. He emptied the weapon in front of the class, placed a t-block in the chamber and proceeded to teach weapon retention/difusion techniques.... until he drew the pistol no one knew it was there.

Along the lines of pressure drills that might combine MA/FMA empty hand/blade training with firearms training, consider the basic blade rule that you DON"T put your own flesh between your target and the blade for fear of cutting yourself. Firearms training has similar postures that use a live/free hand to clear or defend a CQ attacker while chambering the pistol in either the center of the chest or along the hip like a chambered reverse punch.

I think I remember Guru Inosanto telling a story once about how many of the Constibulatories of the Philippines learned to use the .45 as a pistol-grip short stick during battle. The U.S. officers would only give them one bullet, to ensure that a rebellion would be harder, so they resorted to using a bolo in combat, and would only use the pistol a a blunt striking weapon until they met someone that they decided was a little too good to go to blades with. That's the guy that got the bullet. This type of use is a good way to transition knife or espada y daga to firearms.

I came across a video clip on the internet at http://www.systemacalifornia.com/video/surefire.rm (in Real Media format) that shows various items discussed here being used. Using the free hand to clear an attacker, weapon retention, some knife work, and others.

I have seen some CQB techniques that sound similiar to the pistol grip stick idea. Marcinko's SOS Temps uses a 'muzzle thrust' where you stap the BG in the center of the chest or face to create time and distance or as a less than lethal 'negotiation' technique.

I have seen some CQB techniques that sound similiar to the pistol grip stick idea. Marcinko's SOS Temps uses a 'muzzle thrust' where you stap the BG in the center of the chest or face to create time and distance or as a less than lethal 'negotiation' technique.

I would use that as a last resort. Muzzle strikes would worry me regarding creating jams and malfunctions in automatics. If ya gotta do it, ya gotta do it though. Back in the 60's an officer here tried to pistol whip a suspect with his revolver (was common back then). The gun discharged and killed the suspect, big wrongfull death case ensued.

I would use that as a last resort. Muzzle strikes would worry me regarding creating jams and malfunctions in automatics. If ya gotta do it, ya gotta do it though. Back in the 60's an officer here tried to pistol whip a suspect with his revolver (was common back then). The gun discharged and killed the suspect, big wrongfull death case ensued.

Definitely a last resort move. Walk through a door and "BOO" there is the BG type of application.

I would use that as a last resort.

Come on Tom! We have known each other long enough to know that I am not implying risking an accidental discharge or wasting my firearm away as a bludgeoning tool.

Our MP5's have center punches above the muzzles for window breaking.....ouch :)

Come on Tom! We have known each other long enough to know that I am not implying risking an accidental discharge or wasting my firearm away as a bludgeoning tool.I thought you knew more about firearms than to risk a malfunction with your primary weapon....close range non-shooting encounters...thats what the non-gun hand is for.

"Seems to me that the majority of people who shoot, only do so under no stress. You're LEO and military are in a different category due to the nature of the job. However, if someone was looking to use the gun as a SD weapon, IMO, having some stress is a good thing."

Most, if not all of the people I know who shoot regularly use stress/scenario training to prep for their chosen shooting venue. I would say that it is the same as the 'pressure' drills of FMA/MA training like sparring and the like. You have to simulate - within safety measures - the type of application you are expecting to honestly be confident that you could be effective. Regardless of weapon or empty hand tools, training principles of devoting the right precentage of training to technical skill/tactical/strategic applications are important to the complete and appropriate training at each skill level.

And are all of those people LEO or military?? I'm sure that there are some people (civilians) that go that extra mile, but IMO, I would think that most would be happy with what they get at the range.

Mike

I wonder if MJS could offer some knife drills/scenarios that he uses and we could compare or even steal the principles being applied to shooting drills - or even find a way of combining the drills to create a continuum response that incoporates both weapons and tactical goals.

I would think that training with a marker or a knife with something applied to the edge so that it will leave a mark, would probably be the best way to train your knife defense. Working with aliveness and resistance will definately give you a better feeling. More than half of the knife techs. that people are taught today, most likely will NOT work, due to the fact that the "attacker" is not resisting. This does nothing but give the defender a false sense of the tech.

Mike

And are all of those people LEO or military?? I'm sure that there are some people (civilians) that go that extra mile, but IMO, I would think that most would be happy with what they get at the range.

Mike

The 'most of the people I know' types are a combination of military/leo and former, as well as civilians who use range shooting drills that create pressure because of magazine changes/time limits/holster starts and fatigue starts... (push ups or jumping jacks before they even hit the firing point.) Again, I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE REST OF THE SHOOTING WORLD, I know what I do and what others do to prepare for reality shooting. Some are serious civilians and some are not. Push come to shove, if I can get to either weapon equally, I would choose the firearm hands down. As far as training, if you feel that your knife training is good enough to answer all questions, go for it, but I would hate to see what happens when you bring that knife to a gun fight (to state a cliche).

This was not intended to be a comparison between how 'seriously/realistically' shooters train compared to knife fighters. I am sure there are just as many 'enthusiasts' in each area relative to the number of 'real deal' trainers. I don't care what they do, and I am not trying to compare the shooting community to the knife/Martial arts community. If anything, I consider my firearms training as part of my MA training, not separate. I can use things/tactics/drills from each or combine them to create a complete spectrum of training.

As far as the drill you mentioned with markers for knives, I have played that game and it is a great reality check for the uninitiated to realize how easy it is to take a lot of cuts/damage.

If I was to try and find a way to incorporate a firearm into that drill, I would work with a holstered weapon and the goal would be to fight my way with the marker/knife into a good place to draw and fire without endangering myself. Or, use a red gun against a marker/knife each holding the other weapon wrist and work out the problem solving from there.

I thought you knew more about firearms than to risk a malfunction with your primary weapon....close range non-shooting encounters...thats what the non-gun hand is for.

Which is the better practice as far as you are concerned:

1. putting your live hand in FRONT of the muzzle of your own weapon and risking shooting yourself, as well as reducing your retention strength?

or

2. Using steel instead of flesh to strike the face/sternum of a BG to drive them back when you are surprised and maintaining two hand retention strength?

I would guess it comes down to how well you train either one that would create confidence in the practice.

What am I going to Jam my weapon on if I hit the BG in the face... boogers?:)

It started as a technique for sub-guns, carbines etc. then some smarty pants decided it would be good for handgun too. Problem is that auto slides are spring loaded and move. You have seen the one arm reload technique of snagging a sight post on a belt/pocket to move the slide....think it through.

Push come to shove, if I can get to either weapon equally, I would choose the firearm hands down. As far as training, if you feel that your knife training is good enough to answer all questions, go for it, but I would hate to see what happens when you bring that knife to a gun fight (to state a cliche).

It all depends on the distance. I would pick the knife if the reange was close enough. Guns are all about range. If you have distance, then the choice is obvious, but close quarters, gun lose much of their effectiness.

This was not intended to be a comparison between how 'seriously/realistically' shooters train compared to knife fighters. I am sure there are just as many 'enthusiasts' in each area relative to the number of 'real deal' trainers. I don't care what they do, and I am not trying to compare the shooting community to the knife/Martial arts community. If anything, I consider my firearms training as part of my MA training, not separate. I can use things/tactics/drills from each or combine them to create a complete spectrum of training.)

Sounds smart. That's what I try to do.

As far as the drill you mentioned with markers for knives, I have played that game and it is a great reality check for the uninitiated to realize how easy it is to take a lot of cuts/damage.

I think I put this in a different thread somewhere, but we used to train with steel butter knives. The knives were metal so you still got the realistic flash, cold feel, slippery handle and distinctive "ting" during collisions, but the blades were dull serrations. The blades were great because they could run across flesh at high speeds and only leave a red mark and some pain, almost never any blood. This allowed us to get a tinge of pain and left a mark to identify. The best part was that the knives were so cheap we could replace them easily and so durable that we never had to.

If I was to try and find a way to incorporate a firearm into that drill, I would work with a holstered weapon and the goal would be to fight my way with the marker/knife into a good place to draw and fire without endangering myself. Or, use a red gun against a marker/knife each holding the other weapon wrist and work out the problem solving from there.

That sounds like it's worth a try.

It started as a technique for sub-guns, carbines etc. then some smarty pants decided it would be good for handgun too. Problem is that auto slides are spring loaded and move. You have seen the one arm reload technique of snagging a sight post on a belt/pocket to move the slide....think it through.

I'd love to check that one armed reload out.

photo of wounded shooter reload/malfunction clearing (http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/ATIII/ATIII.html)

Stressfire


Shooting under stress is the litmus test for any training. You get to see what your instinctive reactions really are, and whether the smoothly choreographed moves you rehearse in practice work so well in real life. Shooters can become clumsy, hands will shake, vision closes, the mind can go blank. All these things are part and parcel of defensive pistolcraft, and a well-conditioned shooter will still function under these conditions.

Massad Ayoob recommends always shooting under some stress, even if it's just making a bet with someone or penalizing yourself in some way for not meeting your shooting goals. I personally think there is also a place for relaxed, no-penalty experimentation, but still, nothing can hone your skills as much as learning to exercise them under stress.

These are just some notes on what some people have done to create stress for shooters. Take what you like.

The best stressfire is man-on-man. Any way to involve a "hostile" antagonist immediately increases the stress level of an exercise (see the Tueller Drill). Paintball or simunition courses are the most realistic and demanding ways to test gun skills and tactics, because you have to deal with receiving fire as well handing it out. Even simple close-quarter tactical exercises with squirtguns will get your heart pounding.

Police instructors often follow cadets around a shooting course, shouting to confuse. Massad Ayoob at LFI will have a shooter hold a paper target at gunpoint while an instructor harangues her with verbal abuse. The shooter must distinguish death threats from all other abuse, and cannot fire until given a lethal threat. Any kind of verbal involvement in a shooting course is going to help make it stressful.

Paintball guns can be rigged with RC triggers (or with strings on the triggers) to fire at shooters in scenarios. This is an excellent way to force shooters to make good use of cover BUT please be sure that proper protection (full-coverage facemasks) is worn by both the shooter and the range officers. Keep them aimed low enough that guns will not be knocked from hands.

Surprise courses are better than courses the shooter sees in advance.

Shooting in any competition introduces a level of stress.

Running before shooting (as in the biathalon) is a common stress inducer used by the military.

Slosh water on your shooter just before a course of fire. Sniper trainers are known to drip water on the back of a shooter's neck while he or she takes a difficult shot. Squirtguns and super soakers are possibilities.

Put vaseline on a shooter's hands before a stage. (Try thumbing the slide release on a Glock after someone's done this to you!)

LFI has been known to use an electric stun gun on a shooter before firing a standard. I do not know if it was modified to deliver less of a charge than usual, and I would not recommend that you try this without finding out.

Combine any of the above with shoot/no-shoot targets, so that shooters need to take the time to evaluate their targets under stress. The most common live-fire method is to fasten cutouts of either weapons or innocuous objects to the "hands" of cardboard targets. The best threat assessment exercises are man-on-man confrontations using paintballs or simunitions.

From
http://www.kuci.uci.edu/~dany/firearms/all_drills.html

The 'most of the people I know' types are a combination of military/leo and former, as well as civilians who use range shooting drills that create pressure because of magazine changes/time limits/holster starts and fatigue starts... (push ups or jumping jacks before they even hit the firing point.) Again, I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE REST OF THE SHOOTING WORLD, I know what I do and what others do to prepare for reality shooting. Some are serious civilians and some are not. Push come to shove, if I can get to either weapon equally, I would choose the firearm hands down. As far as training, if you feel that your knife training is good enough to answer all questions, go for it, but I would hate to see what happens when you bring that knife to a gun fight (to state a cliche).

And thats wonderful. As it was said before, everybody trains differently. IMO, the only way to prepare for stress, is to put yourself into that mindset. Having someone in front of you who wants to cause you serious harm or kill you, is far more stressful than doing 30 pushups and then shooting your gun. As for the knife/gun fight thing...again, the majority of people dont walk around with their gun strapped to their hip every time they go out. Sure, there are your exceptions, but I suppose it all comes down to who is quicker.

This was not intended to be a comparison between how 'seriously/realistically' shooters train compared to knife fighters. I am sure there are just as many 'enthusiasts' in each area relative to the number of 'real deal' trainers. I don't care what they do, and I am not trying to compare the shooting community to the knife/Martial arts community. If anything, I consider my firearms training as part of my MA training, not separate. I can use things/tactics/drills from each or combine them to create a complete spectrum of training.

Yup, you're right. I believe the main thrust of this thread was shooting under pressure. And yes, as it was said before, it did take a turn down a different road.

Mike

"Having someone in front of you who wants to cause you serious harm or kill you, is far more stressful than doing 30 pushups and then shooting your gun"

Unless you are purposely walking into dark alleys or picking fights, you aren't in front of someone who wants to cause you serious harm during a training class or sparring. You are standing opposite someone simulating the actions and intentions. Of course sparring or head to head stress is more practical, but for firearms safety/access, TGACE has already mentioned paintball/simunition and even air softs with eye protection are options. The push ups - as well as some of the stress inducers that TGACE mentioned - are similar to heavy bag work or speed/double end bag work for empty hand or stick/knife training.

Next time you are planning on sparring or even just doing bag work, do a set of 30 push ups or so, or some other fatigue inducing exercise to simulate the 'fight or flight' physiological reaction you will experience in a real fight. This is very different from 'fighting on' as fatigue sets in because in the real deal, the physiological affect will be much faster and sometimes right away. Check out any description of the affect on fine motor skills, visual accuity, coordination.... It really wakes you up to the challenges your own body creates internally. Then, like you said already, it can be an eye opener to what techniques you really can pull off under physiological stress.

"Having someone in front of you who wants to cause you serious harm or kill you, is far more stressful than doing 30 pushups and then shooting your gun"

Unless you are purposely walking into dark alleys or picking fights, you aren't in front of someone who wants to cause you serious harm during a training class or sparring. You are standing opposite someone simulating the actions and intentions. Of course sparring or head to head stress is more practical, but for firearms safety/access, TGACE has already mentioned paintball/simunition and even air softs with eye protection are options. The push ups - as well as some of the stress inducers that TGACE mentioned - are similar to heavy bag work or speed/double end bag work for empty hand or stick/knife training.

Stressfull situations can be brought into the students training. Matt Thorton adds alivness and resistance to his students training. Here is a better example of what I was trying to say. Having a student stand IFO you throwing a punch, that is 2in. away from your face is not going to give that realistic feeling. Now, have that same student put on a glove and really try to hit you in the face is gonna give a different feeling. Its gonna force the student to move, defend or whatever..if not, they're gonna get hit. Now, as for the pushups. Thats fine, but do them and then stand IFO that student whos trying to really hit you in the face, and I'm sure you'll get a much better feeling.

Next time you are planning on sparring or even just doing bag work, do a set of 30 push ups or so, or some other fatigue inducing exercise to simulate the 'fight or flight' physiological reaction you will experience in a real fight. This is very different from 'fighting on' as fatigue sets in because in the real deal, the physiological affect will be much faster and sometimes right away. Check out any description of the affect on fine motor skills, visual accuity, coordination.... It really wakes you up to the challenges your own body creates internally. Then, like you said already, it can be an eye opener to what techniques you really can pull off under physiological stress.

Been there, done that. After 17yrs of Kenpo tests, 5 yrs of Arnis tests, and having someone swing a stick at you or throw a punch at you when I already feel like I'm gonna drop, and have to defend myself....well, that was an eye opener to me. After going through every kata and every SD tech, and then have to put on gear and spar, and have to worry about defending myself..well, it sucked!!

Mike

what are you guys disagreeing about????

"Here is a better example of what I was trying to say. Having a student stand IFO you throwing a punch, that is 2in. away from your face is not going to give that realistic feeling. Now, have that same student put on a glove and really try to hit you in the face is gonna give a different feeling."

I agree that contact in a non ballistic weapon/h2h format is the only way to go. But, the importance of drills/exercises/training that creates stress that allows you to focus on your performance - like forms, speed training, bag work.... are important to overall development. I would put some of the stress drills that shooter's use on ranges akin to those types of 'overspeed' training drills.

Adjust to the student's ability to deal with the speed/contact intensity and the target of course, but it definitely trains more realistic and appropriate responses. It still isn't someone who is seriously trying to take your head off, but it is as good as it gets while maintaining safety.

The basis for the belt testing formats that most Martial arts programs use, that are worth anything anyway, are based on the idea of performance under stress. Since the link between civilian/military/leo skills is the martial, the testing environments should have some commonallities. Like you have described in some of your history, tests that force you to start at a less than optimum mental and physical state are going to make it clear what you can make work under pressure.

You mentioned having a Glock w/holster. How would you incorporate it into your Kenpo/Arnis training so that you could transition through an entire spectrum of applications?

what are you guys disagreeing about????

I wish I knew! :idunno:

Mike

what are you guys disagreeing about????

I really don't know. I am looking for stress training input on firearms training, and now possible stress drills that might cross over martial arts to firearms.

MJS,
I am seeing a larger respect for martial training, or a lower level of respect for firearms training in your posts. I think that might be what I am responding to. If it is me misinterpreting, please explain further/clearer so I know where you are coming from. I don't want to seem snippy.

If I am right, then my intention is to keep the thread on track.

[QUOTE=loki09789
You mentioned having a Glock w/holster. How would you incorporate it into your Kenpo/Arnis training so that you could transition through an entire spectrum of applications?[/QUOTE]

I think that it was TGACE that was talking about the Glock in the a holster. Not quite sure what you're talking about here??

Mike

I really don't know. I am looking for stress training input on firearms training, and now possible stress drills that might cross over martial arts to firearms.

MJS,
I am seeing a larger respect for martial training, or a lower level of respect for firearms training in your posts. I think that might be what I am responding to. If it is me misinterpreting, please explain further/clearer so I know where you are coming from. I don't want to seem snippy.

If I am right, then my intention is to keep the thread on track.

IMO, I feel that it is important to haev an equal balance in all ranges of fighting....punching, kicking, clinching, and grappling. I also feel that it is important for students to have an understanding of weapons. My understanding of weapons, mostly the knife and stick comes from the Arnis. I think that if you're going to train with weapons, then its also important to learn about weapon retention, which is very important especially when it comes to LEO.

During the course of my training, I've had the chance to see alot of things, that IMO, if tried, would probably do you more harm than good. Fortunately, many of the people that I train with, include that aliveness or realism in their training, so it has opened my eyes so to speak.

Regardless of what you're training with, be it empty hand or weapon, I feel that adding that realism and training things that are going to work, are going to do nothing but make you better at what you're doing.

Mike

Ya wanna see a guy dedicated to his weaponcraft check this guy out!! Wish I was this smooth.

http://www.doublealpha.biz/images/travis_reload.mpg

IMO, I feel that it is important to haev an equal balance in all ranges of fighting....punching, kicking, clinching, and grappling. I also feel that it is important for students to have an understanding of weapons. My understanding of weapons, mostly the knife and stick comes from the Arnis. I think that if you're going to train with weapons, then its also important to learn about weapon retention, which is very important especially when it comes to LEO.

During the course of my training, I've had the chance to see alot of things, that IMO, if tried, would probably do you more harm than good. Fortunately, many of the people that I train with, include that aliveness or realism in their training, so it has opened my eyes so to speak.

Regardless of what you're training with, be it empty hand or weapon, I feel that adding that realism and training things that are going to work, are going to do nothing but make you better at what you're doing.

Mike

I agree with the idea of 'aliveness' or realism in training - regardless of weapon as well. Here you mention balance, and from the sounds of your background, your opinions on the topic of gun vs. knife is based on an unbalanced level of knowledge/experience on both sides. Some of your assumptions about weapons training/use/application are really not what the responsible SD shooting community teach or practice. And that is not the point of this thread. I have spent time becoming relatively familiar with shooting as well as non shooting martial arts and find that there is a seriously 'self validating' stance from both sides.

THe gun guys, who don't have a deep knowledge/respect for the non ballistic arts, tend to think that all 'Bruce Lee's' have a false sense of reality in relation to their training and that everyone wants to answer a gun fight with a fist - and thinks they can win.

The non Ballistic artists tend to think that shooters don't carry well, often or can pull it off well because they spend all their time on the range shooting at stationary targets for points....

After seeing both sides, there are just as many 'wannabes' on both sides who only argue for the virtues of their own art based on inaccurate assumptions on the other side, and from a motivation of self validation.

MJS, I am NOT counting you among these types, but I do think that checking out some of the links that TGACE has on his website would help you understand where I am coming from about my stance that the gun is superior... and I am always talking from the position of the self defense person, not the BG, too much liability problems.

[QUOTE=loki09789
You mentioned having a Glock w/holster. How would you incorporate it into your Kenpo/Arnis training so that you could transition through an entire spectrum of applications?

I think that it was TGACE that was talking about the Glock in the a holster. Not quite sure what you're talking about here??

Mike[/QUOTE]

Yup, I was looking at a clipped quote and misread/credited it to you.