self defense

Modern Army Combatives

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Via Hell In A Handbasket I am introduced to “Modern Combatives.” I do like what they write on their webpage introduction:

There are a couple of basic tenants of Modern Combatives that are important to understand. The first one is that the winner of the hand-to-hand fight in combat is the one whose buddy shows up first with a gun. This is important thing to remember because it puts combative training in perspective. If you drop an enemy dead at your feet with the Vulcan death touch, and his buddy comes in with a gun, you still lose. As Rex Applegate said in his book Kill or Get Killed “Unarmed combat is just what the name implies- a system of fighting intended for use when weapons are not available or when their use is not advisable” Where then does combatives training fit? It must be an integral part of the close quarters fight. Too often “hand-to-hand” is treated as if it were a side note to the actual training. When your weapon malfunctions three feet from the bad guy is no time to start integrating your techniques. Noted Firearms instructor and author Massad Ayoob said it best, “At close range it’s not a shooting contest; it’s a fight.”

The man behind this group is Matt Larsen, who apparently authored FM 3-25.150, the US Army’s latest Combatives field manual. If you look at the manual, it seems to be based heavily on BJJ. While I believe BJJ is great for what it is and I think some sort of empty-hand martial training is better than none, I’m not so sure this is the best thing to teach for battlefield combatives. Perhaps I’m showing my ignorance here (and folks are welcome to enlighten me), but if going to the ground in a streetfight isn’t a sound thing (attacker’s friends mob you, stomping your head into the pavement), I just can’t see how going to the ground in a battlefield is any more sound. This isn’t to say the stuff in FM 3-25.150 isn’t sound in and of itself, and there is more in the manual than just groundfighting; perhaps the way the course is taught gives a proper perspective, different from the manual.

Either way, I do enjoy reading military manuals such as these. Always chock full of good information.

Update: Allow me to clarify something.

I am not saying it’s unwise to learn ground fighting skills. I think it’s quite important to know how to do takedowns, defend against takedowns, fight from the clinch, fight on the ground (all positions: mount, guard, half-guard, etc.). Ground skills are certainly an important aspect of being a well-rounded fighter and lacking them leaves a big hole in your skills.

What I am saying is I’m not sure it’s wise to have combatives stressing ground-fighting as the primary means of unarmed hand-to-hand combat. If the new teaching is “take it to and keep it on the ground”, then you better hope that insurgent you’re wrestling with doesn’t have a bunch of friends nearby to stomp your head in… or that you’ve got a bunch of friends with M4’s backing you up. Do your best to put your opponent on the ground. If you wind up on the ground, you want to get up off the ground. 

This is why I wonder about the actual classes and how the combatives are taught. If the approach is more of having a well-rounded skillset, then that’s great. Just the field manual makes it appear the new teaching is emphasizing “take it and keep it on the ground”. Hopefully I’m wrong and it’s just my ill perception.

Is Hand Placement Important?

/ hsoi

Just finished a workout (Kuk Sool-based) in the front yard. I want to cool down before I hit the shower, so that gives me some time to write up something I observed during the workout.

Hand placement. Does it matter? 

Continue reading →

The Ammo Oracle

/ hsoi

ar15.com (also known as “arfcom“) is a tremendous resource for all things firearms (I know people have varying opinions on it, but hey, it’s still got some good stuff), but with an obvious focus on the AR-15 platform.

One of the resources provided by ar15.com is The Ammo Oracle. The tagline: “Everything you ever wanted to know about .223 and 5.56 ammunition or double your money back.” I’ve read it before, but they seem to have improved the format and navigation of the information. 

In The Oracle you can find all sorts of information: history and design; performance; how barrel twist comes into play; terminal performance, including discussions of fragmentation, over-penetration, and self-defense ammo;  M193 vs. M855 vs. other .223/5.56 rounds; ammunition testing results; ammunition selection; purchase and storage; legal questions; and much much more. As you can see, it’s rather a complete resource.

I revisited The Ammo Oracle yesterday because a friend asked me what I think about “green tip” ammo (M855). I gave him some opinion and pointed him to The Ammo Oracle, but then I started re-reading it myself because it’s been a while since I last read it. I’m glad I did as I become much better informed about M855. In the end I discovered that for my purposes, M193 is a better choice. M855 is fine, but in the end it’s like any tool: you have to pick the right one for the job. All depends what you’re after.

If you own and/or use a firearm that is chambered for .223 Rem/5.56×45 NATO, you owe it to yourself to take the time to read The Ammo Oracle.

Distract and Diffuse

/ hsoi

Another good article from the Force Science News about distractions and aggressive subjects.

While the article is aimed towards law enforcement, what it discusses is useful to anyone that might find themselves in a self-defense situation (read: everyone). Sure those of us that take self-defense seriously spend a lot of time on skills such as marksmanship and empty-hand fighting, but those tend to only come into play when you hit condition red (or black). You should spend your life in code yellow, but when you find yourself in condition orange or red, you need to take other actions.

Most of the actions you should take towards the aggressor should be ones intended to distract and/or diffuse the situation. You want to deescalate things. Increasing the level of force is undesirable, so you must do everything within your power to bring things down. Note that one of the requirements to obtain a Concealed Handgun License in the state of Texas is taking at least 10 hours of classroom study, which includes discussions of nonviolent dispute resolution techniques. InSights Training Center’s Street & Vehicle Tactics course in large part is all about psychology and avoiding potential problems in the first place, or if you get into them how to deescalate.

The FSN article contains some good suggestions on how to distract and diffuse a situation. Worth a read. There is also a follow-up article that contains a lot of reader-submitted techniques.

Force Myths

/ hsoi

An article about myths in the use of force.

I must admit, back in my earlier days I believed the myths. I mean, the media keeps feeding this stuff to us and the media never lies or distorts or furthers an agenda, right? They always present well-researched, correct, unbiased, and factual information, right?

Continue reading →

Storage for a self-defense handgun

/ hsoi / 16 Comments

James R. Rummel has an entry about how to store a handgun kept for self-defense.  This actually started as a comment on his blog but got long enough I thought it warranted its own blog entry.

Overall I agree with James:

  • Concealed carry is a great option as it always keeps the handgun on hand, ready, and should keep anyone else away from it.
  • Home-security is far more than just “have a gun”. Upgrading your locks, frames, lights, other sorts of barriers to prevent or delay entry. All good things.
  • There is no perfect storage solution; they all have trade-offs.
  • Trigger locks are bad.

But I disagree with what appears to be his recommended choice of storage: either in a box under lock and key, or using a cable lock.

Continue reading →

SB 1164 to be heard today

/ hsoi

Texas SB 1164 will be heard today in committee.

Contact your State Senator to let them know how you feel about this bill. Also, contact the members of the Senate Committee on State Affairs. Keep it polite and to the point.

JR’s entry on this.

Updated: Seems it was heard but not voted on yet.

Let’s break down the members of the committee (party, district, NRA grade w/year of grade):

Chair: Duncan (R, 28, A-2008)

Vice-Chair: Deuell (R, 2, A-2002)

Members: Carona (R, 16, A+ 2008), Ellis (D, 13 F-2006), Fraser (R, 24, A-2008), Harris (R, 9, A-2008), Jackson (R, 11, A-2008), Lucio (D, 27, A-2008), Van de Putte (D, 26, B-2008).

We’ll see how it pans out. Stay tuned, true believers….

Updated 2: Fixed the “updated” link to a permanent one.

The Three D’s

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

More self-defense acronyms: Detect, Defuse, Defend. From Tony Blauer, well, actually from Tony Torres.

What I like about this article is while the concepts of Detect, Defuse, Defend seem simple, Mr. Torres looks deeper into them and provides an improved explanation: one that involves being active and taking action, proactive not reactive. Another one of those mindset things.

Verbal commands

/ hsoi

A nice article about verbal commands. (h/t to Robb Allen) I’ve touched on this before, and the article provides some good “checkpoints” for the sorts of commands to use.

One of the commands I’ve been taught was “STOP! DON’T MOVE!”. There’s a great deal of utility in this. Using those “checkpoints” it’s clear, causes hesitation, provides direction, and it can alert witnesses. It’s good for the situation… if you have to draw your gun and point it at someone, it’s a very appropriate command.

Another command I’ve heard to use is “POLICE! CALL THE POLICE!”. Let it be known I’m not recommending this because there’s potential risk for problem (e.g., impersonating an officer). But if the shit hit the fan and you’re in a self-defense situation, especially one where you’re in civilian clothing and have to draw a gun to shoot, it may be useful. It’s important to look at the phrase as a whole and in parts. It starts with “POLICE!”, which is where you risk getting into trouble but if you need to draw a gun and yell this you’ve probably got bigger problems to begin with. You can see why it can be useful to say this, but then maybe it won’t be because if you “identified” yourself as police, could you end up drawing fire? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe any other good guys on the scene would avoid you and/or support you, bad guys might avoid you too but also might turn on you. You just can’t know. But then you follow with “CALL THE POLICE!” which changes the totality of the delivered message, that there’s an emergency and someone that hears this needs to call the police now!  I see a lot of advantages in this command, and disadvantages too. You just have to weigh it to know if it’s right. In terms of the checkpoints, ambiguity? sorta. hesitation? certainly. direction? no not really, tho “call the police” is a direction it’s a plea hoping for someone to call. alert witnesses? I think so.

One thing I’ll state about commands. Don’t cuss. STOP MOTHERFUCKER! DON’T YOU FUCKING MOVE OR I’LL FUCKING KILL YOU YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!  No… that doesn’t go over very well. I mean, when the pressure is on it might fly out of your mouth and if it does it does. But if you can avoid it, avoid it. It keeps the message from being simple and direct. It also may look worse, should what you say/said become an issue.

And folks, don’t be afraid to practice your commands. If you’re doing dry fire for defensive purposes, throw your commands in. Just like all the things we practice, you figure it out beforehand and practice it enough so that when it comes time to use it, you just fall into it and do it.