Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Why I waste time arguing about self and home defence on gun forums.

My response to people settling for "what works" vs "what works better".

I spend a LOT of time, energy, money, and brainpower; training, analyzing, researching, interviewing and doing everything I can to be as proficient as I can with rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I love to learn "the big picture" of things, to look at things like systems, not individual components.

I like to share what I know so that people can judge it against what they know, and refute it, causing me to reanalyze and find out how strong my opinions base is. Or accept it and learn something new they can incorporate, or even just send them in a new direction of learning.

It's funny when you talk to regular shooters, vs competition shooters, because comp shooters (at least good, or progressing ones) are always looking for an edge. It's the adapt or die mentality.

In fact, that's the very reason we have modern handgun shooting technique. I don't see very many people on here saying that shooting aimed with two hands on the gun, in a modern style is "only a competition technique" and of no use for home defense.

So why don't more people carry that over into the life or death realm of SD/HD? I doubt any of us will ever know.

So when people say "X works just fine, you don't need Y" all I can do is laugh because shooting is a dynamic process. Stagnation means you get left behind. Settling for "what works" means you might miss out on whats better.

So that's what I do, and what I love. Share so that people may benefit, question what people say that may be a detriment.

And hope I do a good job of it!

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

It's only gay if you push back.

This is a modification from a response to a dude bagging on training styles.
 It's modified to make more sense as a blogpost. (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1503842_Chris_Costa_has_a_new_grip__Has_anyone_seen_this___.html&page=2 for the actual response and hilarity that is ARF) So, you know, deal with it.

I joined the Marines in 2000, and was introduced to using a magwell grip during the MOUT package at ITB in SOI by our lead instructor, who previously had been part of SOTG's MOUT/CQB cadre.
We used it exclusively for that. That training and use and instruction went on through the fleet and other MOUT/CQB instruction packages. Probably because as Infantry we were training to fight in said style.
The level of training received by students is directly influenced by the motivation of the instructors. You can get a guy that wants to just put checks in boxes, or you can have an instructor like I did that is excited about what he knows, and wants to share it and crank out bad asses. What I learned in my MOUT package in SOI to this day is roughly what is still done by SF and SoF units. They have a lot more "flow" and less set piece stuff going on, but the fundamentals are still very similar. (There was an incident a long while back about training in the early days of the GWOT, where had the person had the same training I did, their life would be a lot different, and the shit thing, our roles could have been easily reversed).

Now lets look at training, and push back to new concepts.

In research and development, sometimes you have to try shit you know doesn't work, or don't think it will work in order to move on. Sometimes you get a surprise, and find out things actually DO work well (Sometimes it fails when you thought it was working too, never know). 

Having grown up a rather FUDD existence shooting, the magwell grip BLEW MY MIND. So quick, so snappy. You could have the muzzle down, bust a corner pop up and slay targets in heartbeats. Later as a civvie the "magpul" grip hit the public eye and I thought "phht gay, magwell grip is the way to go".

Because that's what I learned. So I was defensive.

Then a buddy  told me to try it, and it dawned on me, as an instructor I had been telling people for about a year that "be open to new concepts, try new things, don't stagnate... adapt or die".
So I tried it, and became a better shooter because of it (in the role it's meant for).

If it wasn't for trying new styles, experimenting, and pushing the state of the art, we'd still be shooting pistols with one hand, because using two hands is for women, and shooting rifles like we're on the offhand stage of a highpower match.

TL;DR Everyone should try shit before they bag on it, and just because you learned one way, doesn't mean it's the best way.  Stand by for a part two as the thread motivates me to write.(I'll prob clean this up in the morning too)

Sunday, April 21, 2013

The line between Cockiness and Competance.

   So, ever since my time in the Marines, I've noticed a trend.  People that do jobs where the primary role is shooting people in the face, or causing other types of death and destruction tend to have a certain attitude about their jobs.  To outsiders, this can come across as being cocky, or arrogant.   Sometimes it just plain IS cocky and arrogant.  But, here's the thing.  In jobs like that you have to be to some extent. Either consciously, or sub-consciously to get yourself into the zone.  Sometimes that bleeds over into your normal life.

  My question for YEARS has been, where is the line drawn between confidence, and cockiness?
 My other question, is how much does perspective play a part? 

More on this later.