Some people refer to it as the “forty-five” drill, some the “4×5” or “5×4” or “4^5” or “5^4”. Claude Werner has a “5^5” variation, adding “repeat the drill 5 times to eliminate luck and ensure consistency”. Greg Ellfritz made a “6×6” varation. However you label it, doesn’t that seem to mesh directly with multiple hits? small area? close range? quickly? It’s quite a simple drill, and looks like it can fit the bill.
Looks are deceiving tho, because it doesn’t require you to draw from a holster. If the data shows that most incidents are going to be in public spaces, that means you need to be carrying the gun (i.e. it’s not on a table, in the nightstand, in the glove box, etc.), which means it’s in a holster, which means it’s concealed (under clothing, in a bag, etc.). So this implies you know how to draw and present a gun from concealment. That’s actually two implications: drawing from concealment, and being able to carry concealed in public.
If you’re going to carry concealed in public, in most states in the USA that means you need to have some sort of concealed handgun/weapons/carry license/permit. Many times that means you have to pass some sort of shooting test. To receive a concealed handgun license (CHL) in Texas, there is a shooting test. Notice the test is structured around getting multiple hits, (somewhat) quickly, from various “close” ranges. It’s a bit better than Gila’s test since it works different amounts of shots and different distances. But it fails on a few counts. First, the B-27 target and “within the 8-ring” is akin to hitting the side of a barn; that’s not “in a small area”. Second, just like Gila’s, there is no drawing from a holster. Did you catch that? The Texas test for obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun — which implies a need to draw the handgun out of concealment — doesn’t require you to show you can draw the gun from concealment. Note, I’m not advocating changing the test because there are reasons why it is the way it is. But do these tests truly provide you with the needed skills? or a false sense?
I will say this.
Both of these tests are something I could label “sub-minimal”. That is, they are reasonable tests, but not quite to the standard we’re trying to define.
I believe the primary reason for Gila’s test isn’t so much a proficiency test as a shopping test. That is, if you get a gun, you need to be able to do her test with that gun. If you cannot, that is probably not a suitable gun for you. All too often I see a woman that comes to class with the gun her husband or boyfriend gave her: she has small, weak hands, and he gave her a Sig P226 which she simply cannot operate — she would easily fail Gila’s test. As soon as we swap her with a more reasonably fitting gun, her skills and abilities didn’t change, but now she could pass Gila’s test. If you read the linked-to article on the 6×6 variation, Greg Ellfritz struggled with the Ruger LCP because it’s too small a gun (fit) for him. So perhaps consider this test more of a good way to suss out appropriate equipment than skill.
But certainly, if you cannot perform Gila’s test (or I’d say Claude’s variation, to ensure you didn’t get lucky on the one run) or if you cannot clean the Texas CHL, and you cannot do these consistently and on-demand, then certainly you do not have the minimum competency. These aren’t enough due to shortcomings in the drills themselves, but they are a rung on the ladder.
So if these are “sub-minimal”, what might be minimal?
(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).
So then, what is minimum competency? The Texas Legislature and Department of Public Safety think the TX CHL Shooting Test is minimum. Karl Rehn formulated the “3 Seconds or Less Drill” that’s based around the typical gunfight, and this test gets used in the various Defensive Pistol Level 1,2,3 classes at KR Training. I could be remembering this wrong, but I swore one of Tom Givens’ students only took Rangemaster’s Level 1 class and was able to successfully defend themselves. Claude Werner seems to come up with different statistical analyses of gunfight realities, and one could argue it’s mostly (only?) important to have a gun and draw it.
Defining “minimum competency for defensive pistol” is hard.
However, just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we should avoid doing it.
I think before we can answer the question, it’s important to define and frame the problem. If we’re going to define minimum competency for a self-defense situation, then we need to first know what is a self-defense situation. We’re not hunting. We’re military nor police (tho it’s possible there’s some overlap). We’re talking about private citizens going about their daily lives, but having to deal with robbery, assault, burglary, rape, etc. and refusing to be a victim of such crimes.
Tom Givens has examined incidents of FBI and DEA agents, along with the 60+ student incidents he’s had. What are the common threads?
Distance between victim and assailant? up to about a car length. But exceptions can occur (e.g. out to 25 yards)
You’re in plain clothes, gun is concealed, you need fast access.
Occur in public areas such as parking lots, shopping malls. Home is rare.
Shots fired? 3-5, on average
Multiple assailants are not uncommon
What Tom’s data concludes is that a typical private citizen “incident” is:
armed robbery in some form
1-2 assailants highly likely
3-7 yards
limited response time
“3 shots, 3 steps/yards, 3 seconds”
I know I lean on Givens’ teaching and data a good deal, but Tom’s a top-notch researcher. Certainly to an extent he’s biased, but what Tom is biased towards isn’t necessarily “pro gun, rah rah rah”. Rather he has a bias towards helping people stay alive in the face of a violent world (like Memphis, TN), and to do so you better have a solid, methodical approach towards finding the Truth and what really works; anything else will get people killed. So I consider Tom’s research serious and genuine. Besides, you don’t have to take his word for it: the data is out there, so you can see for yourself.
Another way to look at it? It’s the ability to get:
multiple hits
in a small area
from “close” range
quickly
Unfortunately, if you just say that, everyone’s going to define it their own way. So we need to have clear definitions and create standards based upon the clear definition.
Next, we’ll start to formulate a definition. In doing so, we’ll come to see how the acceptable minimum is higher than you think.
(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).
Minimum – the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.
Competency – the ability to do something successfully or efficiently.
When it comes to the use of a pistol for self-defense, minimum competency would be the least amount of skill and ability needed in order to use that gun to successfully defend yourself.
What would that be?
I got to thinking about it. I see people at gun ranges that blaze away at a target 3 yards in front of them, and they are barely hitting paper. I see people slow plinking, taking one slowly and carefully aimed shot, checking their target, taking their time to set up again for another shot, repeat. I see videos of people attending “tactical band camp” training, throwing lots of lead, but are they hitting anything? are they doing anything effective? I see people passing their Texas CHL shooting test, and their B-27 target looks like it was peppered by a shotgun blast. I see people who are really good at shooting competitions, but struggle with defensive concepts.
Will this cut it? Is this enough true skill and knowledge to survive and win? Or is it a false sense? Sometimes in life it doesn’t matter if our assessment of our competency is different from the reality. But in a case like this, when your life is what’s at stake, you need to be soberingly aware of your skill and ability.
As friend and fellow KR Training Assistant Instructor Tom Hogel likes to say, “you don’t know what you don’t know”. If you don’t know what it takes, if you don’t know what you can and cannot do, well… what’s that going to get you? So, I started to think about what a minimum set of drills would be to try to illustrate this concept to folks. That is, if you shot these drills and could not do them cleanly on-demand, then you don’t have the minimum competency. That someone who thinks “I’ve got what it takes”, you give them this drill(s), have them shoot it right then and there, and if they cannot do it no they don’t have what they think they have.
This isn’t to say once you can do these drills then you are done and can rest here; no, because this is minimum. Karl Rehn likes to point out something he learned from Paul Ford (former Austin Police SWAT member). Paul pointed out that in a gunfight you will do about 70% of your worst day at the range. Think about that: take your worst day (under the ideal circumstances of the range), and now make it a lot worse, and that’s how you’ll do. If this is how it goes, how good do you think you really need to be so when the flag flies and your skills degrade to being “worse than your worst”, then that level is still high enough to get you through? So, you must train well beyond these minimums.
But that said, if you cannot perform to the minimum, the sooner you can know that the better. The sooner you can work to remedy it.
Hasn’t this already been defined? Well, maybe. Take a look at this extensive collection of handgun standards. If we have so many standards, do we really have *a* standard? Well, we do have to consider these standards are likely within a particular context, e.g. qualifying for police, carry permits, etc.. Furthermore, every trainer out there wants to have their own set of standards and performance assessment, but are their standards truly testing something? are they well thought out towards achieving a particular end? or did they just string together a bunch of stuff so they could slap their name on a drill? And is there really a “standard” or “drill” that is trying to answer the question I’m asking?
Ultimately, my motivation is trying to bring some cold truth to folks. I speak to people all the time that passed the Texas CHL shooting test, maybe even got a perfect score. They are quite proud of their accomplishment, and consider that the end – that they have passed the CHL test, they know all they need to know, that they are as proficient as they need to be, and will be able to handle themselves should they ever need it. I speak with people who grew up around guns, learned to shoot in the back pasture, but it’s evident from watching them they really couldn’t shoot their way out of a paper bag much less deal with a response to being assaulted. I’m no expert, but I’ve learned enough to know that I don’t know. Furthermore, I know it’s better to have your bubble burst when it doesn’t matter, than to see your world fall apart when everything is on the line. If I’m in the business of helping people protect themselves and their loved ones, I’d like to see what I could do to come up with a simple way to help people assess if they truly have the minimal skills or not.
The next some postings will be a short journey to examine this question: what is the minimum competency required for defensive pistol use?
(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).
In short, man sees a dude acting strange, shortly thereafter hears a scream from inside the bank and the dude running out. Man gives chase, tries to stop the dude, and gets killed for his efforts.
I cannot fault the man for seeing wrong and trying to do something about it. I’m sure he didn’t think, he just reacted. His intentions were good and honorable.
Unfortunately, his good intentions got him killed.
I’m not saying you should do such things, nor am I saying you shouldn’t.
What I am saying is, you need to answer this question for yourself: what is worth dying for?
You need to answer this question NOW, not later. When the fur flies, you will not have time to think, only do. You need to know where your line is, what you are willing to die for, and what you are unwilling to die for. You might find your line is in a different place than you thought it was. There is no shame in that, because it’s better to be honest with yourself. Who knows… maybe your life circumstance changed. I know if I was single and childless my line would be in a different place than it is with me being married with children. Whatever your reasons are, don’t be ashamed and don’t worry what others might think, especially if it might be some ego “less manly” type of thing. Those calling you wussy aren’t going to support your children when you’re dead. They’re not going to comfort your grieving widow. They’re not going to pay your medical bills when you’re in the hospital. This is your life, not theirs, and you don’t answer to them. Know what you are willing to and unwilling to die for, and answer only to yourself and your god.
Just be sure you figure out that answer now, when it’s nice to know, before you need to know.
Notice how your fixation enables you to collect a lot of data about whatever you are fixated on? That’s good.
Notice how your fixation denies you data collection about everything else around you? Well, you probably didn’t notice because you were fixated on something. 🙂 And that’s potentially bad.
Of course, for fixation to be good or bad depends upon circumstance and context. In a personal defense context, it can be a bad thing. Why? Well, if you get fixated on one thing, missing out on others could cause you greater hurt.
Or, you get focused on that one guy acting strange, and you don’t notice his buddy sneaking up from the other side to whack you on the head.
We get target-fixated. That’s a human thing to do. What we must do in response is realize when we are getting fixated and break the fixation.
Scanning is a fundamental tool to break fixation.
Think to yourself “SCAN! SCAN! SCAN!”. We yell this a lot during Defensive Pistol Skills 1 classes at KR Training. Notice it’s in a “level 1” defensive skills course. It’s that fundamental a skill. It’s that important to learn how to break your target fixation. It gets you off whatever you are fixated on and resumes your consumption of information from the world around you. It doesn’t stop paying attention to whatever you were fixated upon, it just resumes paying attention to other things as well because there may be something else that demands your attention. And then you’ll get fixated again, and then you’ll need to break that fixation again.
What motivated me to write this was walking to the gym the other morning. It’s early morning, dark. It’s rare to see other people out, so when I saw this guy walking further up the road from me, of course it caught my attention and my guard went up. He was walking the same direction I was, so I didn’t feel any sort of immediate threat, but I paid attention. Then I broke attention and started to scan, because I felt myself getting fixated on him. He drifted to the other side of the road, and I did the opposite, working to keep distance between us. He kept slowing down, and tho that caused me to close distance (I kept my same pace), I realized he never once looked up, never once looked around despite the fact I was getting closer – my footsteps were obvious. Eventually he turned right, into a park, and kept on walking. Never once looked my way. And as I realized he was just some dude walking somewhere, I couldn’t help but think his total obliviousness to me could have been dangerous for him — what if it was some bad guy coming to mug him?
Then as I passed him I took one last look over at him as he was walking away… and I saw how fixated he was on his smartphone.
Chuck Rives is an Affiliate Instructor, for Mike Janich’s Martial Blade Concepts. Chuck has been a martial artist for about 30 years. Chuck lives in Amarillo, Texas and is an Emergency Manager for a Federal Government Agency. Chuck teaches knife, and defensive tactics regularly to peace officers and corrections officers.
So, Chuck knows his stuff. Chuck’s been coming to KR Training for a while to host shorter classes, and I’ve wanted to check out his classes for some time but just haven’t been able to for one reason or another. But this class I didn’t want to miss because 1. it was a full day, 2. it was also going to have Allen Elishewitz. Alas, Allen was unable to make the class, but that really didn’t detract much because Chuck ran a great class with much to teach. You may know who Michael Janich is, as he’s been a part of the TV show The Best Defense for some time now. While I’m not a huge fan of a lot of the “training” TV shows out there, I am a fan of Michael’s and what he teaches is solid. What Chuck teaches isn’t pure MBC curriculum, Chuck is an Affiliate Instructor of MBC and is highly recommended by Janich.
The knife work is founded in Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) style and concepts. Consequently, it’s logical, simple, and effective. What Chuck has put together for this 1-day workshop provides a basic foundation of simple concepts and techniques that almost anyone can use to defend themselves with a knife.
The workshop started out with a discussion of self-defense, what defensive knife work is (this isn’t dueling, it’s not Westside Story). Some talk about knives themselves in terms of construction and blades. Then a live demonstration of various knives via “Pork Man”. Watch this video:
That’s Michael Janich, and the first 3 minutes or so give his background, followed by some useful footage of actual knife attacks (close, swift, aggressive, brutal), and finally the “Pork Man” demo. What you can see is that knife attacks can be ugly, even with small/short blades. One thing that Chuck’s demo showed that the YouTube video doesn’t, is how blade shape/construction matters. Chuck had a knife that looks evil and threatening — it’s big, black, looks “tactical” and “scary”. But actual cutting ability? It was pretty poor due to blade and edge shape. Then some smaller, less threatening looking knives did far worse damage, but again it was due to superior shape and edge. There’s a lot one can glean from such a demonstration.
After Pork Man, we had discussions of targeting, stance, deployment, grip, and then angles of attack. Again, if you’re familiar with FMA, these angles of attack are familiar. I won’t give away all that Chuck teaches — you’ll do better to learn from the teacher. But if you’re a student of Kali or Arnis or Escrima, you probably already know what’s going on here. Basic blocks and attacks, all based upon the same/similar concepts. At first, it seems like you’re learning a lot, then you realize as the day goes on that you’re learning the same thing and it doesn’t seem like much, and that’s the great thing about it — it’s simple, it’s less to learn, but yet it’s effective regardless. This means when the flag flies you have less of inventory to hunt through for a response, which means a faster response. Good thing.
What Chuck taught was simple and effective, but there’s no question you cannot just take the class then forget about it. You are going to need to practice these things to get them smooth and reflexive. When practicing these, I found myself a few times with brain fade and reverting to techniques I already knew from past martial arts experience. What was soberingly evident? Chuck’s techniques strive to get you on the outside of your attacker, which is generally a safer place to be, especially when a knife is involved. So much of what I learned in the past? Works to get you inside your attacker and keep you there. Really, there’s no one right place because inside and outside can have advantages and disadvantages, reasons to want to be there and reasons to not want to be there. It was just an interesting contrast to have Chuck’s material presented, which focused on getting outside, and finding myself at times reverting to old habits which want to keep me inside.
Was there anything bad about the day? Well, it was hot, sunny, windy, which really took a lot out of you. In the later afternoon we probably should have taken it back inside, cleared the room, and continued working in there. But Chuck was good about taking breaks, cooling off, getting water. It’s good when instructors aren’t just attentive to material, but also these other realities and necessities of teaching. I do wish there was more way to apply the techniques, like some FoF scenarios. But I’m not sure logically how that could be worked out. I know in past martial arts study we’ve done things like get a red magic marker and white t-shirts, so it doesn’t hurt too much but it also shows the damage done. But that’s also probably too much material for one day (2 day course? Maybe a “Level 2” workshop that starts with a review of this material, adds a few more things, then spends the afternoon in FoF?).
One thing I kept thinking about was my past defensive folding knife training with Insights Training. I thought Insights’ work and Chuck’s work went well together. It’s cool when you have different people with different backgrounds and different courses that wind up in essentially the same place. I don’t think one replaces the other, but they do complement. For example, both came down on about the same side of knife selection (Chuck with a Spyderco Endura, Insights with Spyderco Delica). I still like Insights’ approach of two knives, one in each pocket. I thought Insights did more to cover drawing and getting the knife into play, and discussion of that importance. But it’s interesting how Insights tended to focus more on being in the fight then getting your knife; Chuck spoke a lot about how you can get the knife ready before the fight is on. Insights seemed to have a bit of “gun as your primary” tendency, whereas Chuck acknowledged the knife may have to be your primary and how to treat it in the face of that or NPE’s. Insights focused on a few simple but different techniques. Chuck focused on a few simple but similar techniques. However, application was different. For example, Chuck addressed distance, getting outside, and getting away. Insights had a solution for the clinch and being caught in close. Both focused on targeting to disable your attacker so you can get the fight to stop and/or escape. Insights had a stance where your knife-side was back (thus your “empty hand” was forward). Chuck put your knife forward, so your empty hand wasn’t just a target. On this last point, I think Chuck’s position is more sound, either when attacking with or defending against a knife (so long as you have one too); but that’s going to be very hard for gun folk to learn since so much gun technique is about keeping your gun side away from the attacker. Anyways, I don’t think either group has a monopoly on knowledge and technique. Both present sound solutions, and I think they do far more to complement and augment each other.
Not only did I pick up on direct course material, but I took home some other things. First, I still feel good about choice of Spyderco Delica. They are fast to deploy, solid, and you just don’t have the fumble factor that other folders suffer from (e.g. due to pins; the big hole really helps with thumb deployment). They have good design, and aren’t too expensive such that if you have to lose or ditch the knife, life goes on. Still, a folder isn’t as good as a fixed-blade, and Chuck had a technique that was so simple towards carrying and deploying a folder that I’m going to experiment with it for my own carry. I also picked up on some things for my own teaching (“Tony Chin”). I liked Chuck’s style: very personable and friendly, very passionate about this material, and you can tell he really wants to take the time and care to ensure people learn and grow.
If you care about personal defense, you should care about the knife. If you choose to carry one, you ought to know how to use it. To know how to cut veggies in the kitchen is one thing, but to know how to defend yourself with it is another. But even if you don’t carry one, you’d do well to get some training in how to defend yourself against a knife. Yes, a gun can be an effective defensive tool, but you first need to get your gun out. Being able to perform a few simple movements (again, the FMA-based techniques can work for you if you have a knife in your hand, a club in your hand, or empty hands) to stave the initial attack, get to the outside, and buy you the time to get your gun out… well, there’s much to be said for such knowledge and ability.
I look forward to training with Chuck again.
On one final note, I’d like to give some love to my friend, Shawn Hatcher of Hatcher Knives. Shawn came out and was my training partner for the day. He was kind enough to fashion a trainer version of the REH out of some G10. We spent the afternoon beating each other up, overthinking together, and having a grand time. I must say, Chuck’s techniques are more directly suited for a forward-type grip, so I did use my Delica Trainers for much of the class. But I did use the REH trainer when I could to see how it would convey. Because the REH is designed with a reverse edge and also to typically be held in a reverse-grip, I found myself thinking WAY too much about technique application. But on the same token, most of Chuck’s techniques became even more ugly due to the hooking motion. Yes, some techniques wound up just striking the blunt back-edge of the REH, but as you followed through with the technique… yeah, fun stuff. Shawn took the REH home with him — going to add some “version 1.2” refinements. The joys of custom knives! Shawn’s really evolving as a knife-maker, and if you’re in the market, you should give him a try.
Self-defense training is about risk reduction. Those making choices based on Y chromosome-induced testosterone poisoning, rather than logic, reason, and data analysis, deserve whatever problems their stupidity leads them into.
– Mr. Han (Jackie Chan, the 2010 remake of “The Karate Kid”)
Whenever people dole out self-defense tips, it tends to be under the guise of you being in the fight. The fight has started, or the fight is inevitable, and how can you manage the fight. Granted, sometimes this is how it goes. But what might be better is if we could avoid the fight in the first place.
There are good techniques for this, like SouthNarc’s Managing Unknown Contacts (MUC) techniques, or just following the Insights Training ABC: Always Be Cool. Marc MacYoung knows a lot about the subject too, and when he posted this article I thought it was one worth sharing.
Here are the 8 points, without elaboration (you can find that in the article):
Forget what you see on the screen
Live, love and be happy
Know yourself
He’s human too
Get over yourself
Leave
Peyton Quinn’s rules
Stick to the mission
Notice there’s no tips on how to punch him just right, how to shoot more effectively, none of that. It’s about mindset, it’s about mental approach and tactics for situations — before they become situations. This is more important.
It’s also about humility. There’s so much bravado, so much macho about fighting and self-defense. I recently saw a posting on Facebook, of a picture of a bank holdup scene and captioned basically “and what would you do”. The comment thread was full of big talk, heroics, fantasy, and few posters acknowledged realities involved (tho it was cool to see Rog mention the Beer & TV Maxim; one of the few rational comments on the picture). I think about #8 of “stick to the mission” which is basically:
Every time I leave the house, my mission is to return to it and my loved ones safely and unharmed so I can live a long and happy life with them.
So does your macho, your bravado, your fantasy, your heroics, do they permit you to fulfill your mission? Granted, your mission may be different, but then at least you know your mission. You do clearly know your mission, right? If you don’t, if you cannot stop right now and state it clearly aloud, then perhaps you should take a moment to define what your mission is. It will guide you and your decisions, which may be critically important when the flag flies.
Give the whole article a read. It’s quite good. In fact, most of these tips will apply beyond “violent encounters”. I mean, we have conflict on the job or in other interactions in our daily life. Tips like Peyton Quinn’s rules will help you manage those just fine too.
As I listened to the police scanner during the Boston manhunt, I wasn’t thinking about “police all over the place” in the “personal security guard” sense that Feinstein seemed to be implying.
Instead, I imagined a mother huddled in the nursery with her baby. Her husband is out of town and she is also listening to the police scanner, praying the terrorist doesn’t burst through her back door.
I imagined an 85-year-old World War II veteran living alone. He fought the Nazis on foot across Europe and his government just instructed him to “shelter-in-place.” He turns out the lights in his home and hunches over his radio waiting for updates though the long night.
I wondered if they could protect themselves if the worst happened.
In the middle of that night listening to the Boston police scanner, I evolved.
I realized right then that if I were holed up in my house while a cold-blooded terrorist roamed my neighborhood, I wouldn’t want to be a sitting duck with only a deadbolt lock between me and an armed intruder. There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me. I knew at that instant if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev showed up at my door while I was “sheltered-in-place” and aimed a gun at my head and only one of us would live, I could pull the trigger.
Her story resonates with me because I too evolved. I was never against guns and wanting to ban them on the whole, but I didn’t see why anyone needed “a machine gun to hunt Bambi”. Then, Wife was sexually assaulted while taking Oldest (then an infant) out for a walk/push in his stroller. That was my evolutionary moment. It still took me a number of years to come around to owning a gun and carrying a gun, but that moment opened my eyes to many realities about life and the world. That moment set in motion my quest for knowledge, education, and enlightenment about personal safety, crime prevention, etc.. To then own and carry a gun became a logical conclusion, because when you strip away your ignorance, your bias, you emotions and all you have left is fact and harsh realities about the world? Things become pretty clear on their own.
Legitimate defense can not only be a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about.
Stuff From Hsoi 