How has firearms training improved your approach to combat training?

[Cruentus]

How has firearms training improved your overall approach to combat training; specifically in ways that the martial arts have fallen short?

I am just wondering about your individual experiences...



Paul

 

[rutherford]

Seems like a loaded question.

 

[KenpoTex]

Interesting question. I'll take a shot at it (sorry )

Unlike many people who start the MA at a young age and don't begin fireams training 'till adulthood, I've been using firearms for far longer than I've trained in martial-arts/h2h (18 years vs. 4 or 5). I would definately say that my empty-hand skills supplement my gun handling. This is particularly true in the areas of "in-fight" weapons access, and weapon retention.
I think that in general, many of the "gun crowd" believe that their gun is all they'll ever need and that empty-hand or edged/impact weapons are unnecessary. While I was not this "close-minded" prior to my MA training, I have since become an even stronger advocate of the idea of a complete self-defense package--one that includes everything from empty-hand to firearms.

Then we have the person who has extensive MA experience but no firearms training. I think the greatest benefit that would be gained in this case would be a realistic understanding of the capabilities and limitations of firearms. There are two basic ways to learn about firearms, one is through using them, the other is through watching television. Anyone care to guess which method will leave you with a lot of misconceptions and faulty information?
I personally don't understand the MA'ists who claim to support/teach/train self-defense and call themselves Martial-artists yet hold a dim view of firearms (I swear, I won't go off on a tangent ). However, even if someone holds this type of "viewpoint," I believe they should at least be familiar with the various action types and basic manual of arms if they are participants in a system that teaches gun disarms.

Hopefully somewhere in my rambling I touched on what you were looking for.

 

[Cruentus]

Kenpotex,

Good perspective. See, I am the opposite where I have been doing martial arts far longer then firearms, so it is good to see the different perspective. Not to get off on a tangent either, but I have a hard time understanding some martial artists who claim to teach "reality," yet ignore the reality of firearms. But, further then that, I think that there are a lot of things that martial artists could learn from the shooting world if they gave it a chance, that would actually improve their martial arts and their perspective.

Rutherford...lol nice pun ....in all seriousnesss though, my intent is not for this to be a slam fest on martial arts or martial artists. The martial arts have a lot of value that the "gun world" could learn from as well, which is something we can talk about here too.

I just think that there are 2 slightly different perspectives here that can work well together.

Paul :supcool:

 

[TonyU]

I've been doing both ( for well over 20 years) and I started both at about the same time, so I can't really judge which has impacted which more.

So in my training (both empty and armed) I try to always train with midnset that if I need draw my weapon it must in conjucntion or supported by my empty hand or viseversa. Like kenpotex stated (very well I might add) one must not depend on the firearm as thats what you will ever need.
Nothing worse than having your weapon out, drawiung on someone refusing your command, unarmed who now you must put your hands on.

Who here works and trains in their transitions, not only being able to draw your weapon from an empty hand perspective, but just as quickly and efficiently resecure you weapon and go to empty hand or another weapon option?

 

[rutherford]

Rutherford...lol nice pun ....in all seriousnesss though, my intent is not for this to be a slam fest on martial arts or martial artists. The martial arts have a lot of value that the "gun world" could learn from as well, which is something we can talk about here too.

I just think that there are 2 slightly different perspectives here that can work well together.

Paul :supcool:

Well, what I meant by my pun was that your question seems to presuppose that firearms are missing from my martial arts training and that there is some difference between the two.

We have a different perspective.

 

[Tgace]

For the law abiding, trained citizen, the routine carry of firearms are a constant reminder to stay in the proper mindset. Something poking you in the side or dragging at your ankle saying "hey! you better stay alert and on the straight and narrow." When you are a competent gunman you dont go into bars and drink with it on, you dont start fights and pull it out, or wave it at the guy who cut you off on the way home.

Its not only a tool, its an obligation. when placed in the proper context it can help keep you out of trouble so you wont have to use it.

 

[arnisandyz]

hey Tulisan, good topic.

Let me go off on a tangent and share how martial Arts training has helped me in my firearms training (IDPA practical shooting). Below is a trascript of an email I just wrote to a friend (a non-martial artist). We both started IDPA together and I have been placing pretty good (my time isn't far off from the leaders) and he has been doing just OK. He asked me for some advice on how to develop speed. He is a very good bullseye shooter and was on the Pistol team when he was in the Navy, but action shooting is way different.



"One thing that I forget to mention...in regards to speed. My martial arts training has help me on this greatly. But its not so much from physical speed, but from visual speed, seeing things faster. In Filipino Martial Arts the sticks and knives move very fast! Also, there are concepts we follow about being concerned about the moment. I'm still working on this of course, but applied to IDPA, once you aquire a target and send your bullets downrange, have the confidence that they WILL hit where you want them to and move on, if you try to verify your shots your living in the past. Many times I have no idea what I shot until we go to score it. There are also concepts of economy of motion in martial arts that directly cross over but for now thats more on the physical side.

When I do my dry-fire drills I usually start out seeing what I'm going to shoot in sequence then without even drawing a gun or doing a site picture, I'll practice looking at them quickly in sequence until I get a good smooth and fast past. I then drawn and engage trying to keep my vision identification and pacing the same as before. If my body can't keep up with my vision, I'll slow it down a little. Its all timing and flow...timing my physical activity with my vision (without interupting the flow of my vision, like stopping to verify).

When I do my airgun practice the plastic bottles give me instant verification. If I miss completely I try not to interupt the flow and come back to it after engaging the other targets. Its really hard to go on if I don't hear or see the bottle fall, but I try and force myself not to be too concerened with the past.

Baically I'm just trying to train vision and flow. I think we both just need to stay with IDPA and things should fall into place. There is so much to practice and learn. I know what your talking about in regards to your rapid fire strings in bullseye. Your mind goes into a state of meditation or subconsious thought and your body just reacts. I think verifying shots hurts because it breaks that flow (wakes you up) moreso than adding time.

I hope any of this might help, but take this advice with a grain of salt...I'm still learning IDPA just like you! I MAY BE TOTALLY OFF!!! but its been working ok for me."

Andy


Just wanted to share. I hope those of you who practice Modern Arnis can see how the concept of flow can affect shooting as well as many things in our everyday lives. For you martial artists who also have a CCW and train with firearms, I would highly recommend that you check out an IDPA match in your area. Its a blast!

 

[Tgace]

Guns alone are not self defense.

 

[Cruentus]

Good responses so far, and thanks for sharing, everyone.

I think a lesson here is that close quarter fighting is still fighting, regardless of what weapon you have. Having had the opportunity to be a range safety officer and observe different shooters, it would seem that the "fighters" of the group (often martial artists) are also the good shooters. I am of course speaking about combative shooting rather then competition or bullseye shooting (things that all have value, but just not what I am refering too here). I have also seen even in the simple entry level CPL class where lightbulbs have went on for some martial artists about use of force, SNS, critical incident amnesia, and so on...all things that have great value to ones overall developement.

Some of you integrate your martial arts and your shooting training where they are almost one in the same. I think that this is a very good thing to do.

Paul

 

[KenpoTex]

Tgace, thanks for the link, great article.

 

[Tgace]

Of course while being a "martial artist" and a gun owner is ideal, you dont have to be a "martial artist" and a gun owner to be effective. As long as the person is aware of the "physical contact game" and makes some sort of training effort to deal with it, they will be ahead of the game. Plenty of unarmed martial artists have been killed by guns. A few stories of which are buried in this forum somewhere. While a gun isnt a talisman, when used right it can be a great "equalizer".

I remember my last simunitions session where I was rushed by a knifeman in the middle of drawing. I moved laterally and did a football style stiff arm. My arm got hacked up, but I dumped a magazine worth of rounds into his torso before getting "off the line" and getting out of the room. Not very "martial arts" but I didnt stand still and keep trying to draw either.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Interesting question. I'll take a shot at it (sorry )

Then we have the person who has extensive MA experience but no firearms training. I think the greatest benefit that would be gained in this case would be a realistic understanding of the capabilities and limitations of firearms. There are two basic ways to learn about firearms, one is through using them, the other is through watching television. Anyone care to guess which method will leave you with a lot of misconceptions and faulty information?

BINGO! If I had my way, no person would make dan ranking without spending an afternoon firing a handgun. Too many martial artists, in my experience, overestimate their capabilities vis-a-vis an armed attacker. Also, many don't understand how far a bullet can travel and with what force. Anyone who thinks a car door will stop a .45 is living in a dream world. Attaining some proficiency with firearms, even if you have no intention of owning one, can, in my opinion, double a martial artist's self-defence abilities.

Most importantly, martial artists need to understand that their greatest self-defense threat is a young man aged 15-30 armed with a handgun - not a black belt in Brazilian Ju-jitsu.

On a side note, inividuals familiar with, and well-trained in firearm usage tend not to abuse them. When I was growing up in Florida in the mid-1970's nearly everyone had guns - and nobody used them. No school massacres, etc., even though many, if not most, of my fourth grade classmates, including myself, had some access to firearms.

 

[Korppi76]

I think that main threat is always location based. For example in Finland, where I live, greatest self-defense threat is young man with knife or group of them.
But even with knife the person who is armed has usually edge to person who is unarmed.
About firearms training I have got it has made me sure not to go fight with someone armed with one and if I am the armed one then I dont like to get other person near me. And I got my firearms training in army, as do most of men in Finland, so I am trained to work with assault rifles and bigger weapons, not with handguns like pistols so I cant say anything about that.

Sorry, it was hard to write this in english.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I think that main threat is always location based. For example in Finland, where I live, greatest self-defense threat is young man with knife or group of them.
But even with knife the person who is armed has usually edge to person who is unarmed.
About firearms training I have got it has made me sure not to go fight with someone armed with one and if I am the armed one then I dont like to get other person near me. And I got my firearms training in army, as do most of men in Finland, so I am trained to work with assault rifles and bigger weapons, not with handguns like pistols so I cant say anything about that.

Sorry, it was hard to write this in english.

Your English is fine! Welcome to Martial Talk. You make some great points in your post. Knives are very dangerous too - and martial artists need to respect the damage that they can inflict. Also, I remember from history, that the Finnish army fought the much, much larger Soviet Army to a standstill, so your training must have been pretty good, indeed.

 

[Cruentus]

One thing that I think that the firearms training world can do is bring that "sense of urgancy" into training. Martial Artists and martial arts training tends to take the mentality that there is a lifetime of learning and training, so the training seems geared towards working on the intricacies of an art and spending a lot of time building attributes, and even improving and working on things that have little to do with combat. New students in many martial arts schools often know very little about fighting even after 6 months of training. Where firearms training is concerned (and I should specify specifically combat shooting), there is a much more of a sense of urgency, and much more of an understanding that we are dealing with life or death self-defense here. It would be unthinkable in the combat shooting world to spend days, let alone months training, and having not learned the basics of defending yourself with a gun.

On the other hand, though, the gun world tends to address this sense of urgency, without adequetly addressing the fact that there is a lifetime of trainig and learning that could be done. So, certification courses can be obtained often after a few hours or days of instruction. The attitudes of many shooters, and even instructors, is basically a "maintence of skills" mindset once the intitial instructions is complete. This is evident in that a lot of people who claim to be avid shooters, people who carry for their jobs, and intructors often only shoot a couple times a year. It would be pretty sorry and disgraceful from a martial arts prospective to be a certified instructor after only a few hours of training, and to only train martial arts "to maintain skills" a few times a year.

So, each of these processes have pro's and con's; I try to use this understanding to my advantage when structuring my training courses.

Paul

 

[guromkb]

Kamusta Ka...I am in agreement. IMHO combative firearms profciency in pistol, shotgun, carbine and in my case long distance rifle shooting is the highest form of Martial combatives possible. Now I know some may say well you just have to have a little practice to be good or all you do is point it and it goes bang (I've heard that one a bunch). I have been shooting and hunting since I was 7 and I'm 42 now, so it is a big part of my life. I grew up in a time when your father took you outside and actually worked with you on developing skills, everything from hunting, shooting, bow hunting, hatchet throwing etc. ( My sister as well, she learned much quicker than myself). I have been training martial arts 23 years and I love it very much but I find firearm training to be a much higher love. If given the choice between training empyty hands or pistol, I will opt for pistol 9 times out of 10. Plus being a bit older and banged up i.e. a 3 disc blow out in my lower back, I tend to favor training weaponry much more...pistol and knife more than anything else. With a severely injured back I have no business rolling on the ground with anybody..my luck the back goes out and all I have left to bank on is my feared dead o'possum technique. But I do feel one should be well versed in all 5 ranges of practical combatives..largo, medio, corto, grappling, projectile! But as age catches us practicality tends to take on a mind of it's own making sharp objects and projectiles a more logical approach. Salamat Po


Michael B