Month: May 2009

Paranoia

Posted by Mostly Genius – May 29, 2009

The people who do not recognize an urgency for self-defense preparation like to throw around the word, without really knowing what it means:

Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

Truthfully, everyone accepts that a certain level of preparation is relevant and necessary, but people disagree on where the line is to be drawn. Ironically it is the under prepared that think they have all the answers because they don’t understand the scope of the problem. I see a lot of people try to use statistical arguments for their lack of preparedness:

“Getting attacked by a serial killer has pretty low statistical probability, therefore no preparation is required.”

The corollary to this reasoning is that if you are unlucky enough to be attacked by a serial killer then you are just dead. It ignores the fact that the skills and equipment necessary to thwart the serial killer are useful in situations at occur more frequently. It also ignores that situations evolve and escalate. The application of single finger salute in a parking dispute can transform an irritation into a deadly force encounter.

The position of the defender is always reactionary. To my way of thinking we don’t really get to make a lot of choices because the actions of the aggressor dictates what our responses will be. If the assailant poses an immediate deadly threat, we don’t have a lot of options: run, fight, or die. My suspicion and mistrust of people is based upon the simple fact that many people in our society do not have our best interests at heart, are willing to do us harm to further their own ends, and people really do get killed. Having the will to succeed, a plan to do so, and the training and equipment to ensure success is not paranoia, it’s prudence.

Stupid Gun Inventions: The Glock Fore Grip

Posted by Mostly Genius – May 15, 2009

Folding Fore Grip Even the manufacturer thinks this is a stupid idea:

This grip is intended to be used on long weapons.
When mounted on a glock or any other Polymer handgun, there is a risk that the grip will slide off during shooting – because of the flexibility of the handgun’s rail, so please do not mount the grip on a handgun!.

Is it just me, or does the photo not illustrate the folding fore grip on a pistol? Farther down the page I find:

• Designed mount on most handguns

I know that I don’t want to run my handgun with a hand in front of the trigger guard and I also know that I don’t want to fill out more ATF paperwork to do so (the manufacturer makes it clear that you need the paperwork to legally attach this to a handgun.)

I am guessing these guys really need to make a set of sling swivels for the Glock, so that once you have attached too much garbage to holster it you still have a way of carrying it around.

Firearms for the physically disabled

Posted by Mostly Genius – May 8, 2009

Since this stirred up enough controversy amongst the advocates for the disabled I figured I would address some of these issues in a separate post.

The wrong gun. There are guns that are just wrong for some people. If you are smaller and/or weaker than a lot of larger guns are going to give you problems. A gun that doesn’t fit your hand and doesn’t let you reach the trigger properly isn’t going to work for you. If you can’t rack the slide then you have the wrong gun. All firearms require a certain amount of strength and dexterity to operate, and some require more than others.

Exchanging the problem. If the starting place is having the wrong gun, the next step is to start making modifications. A lighter recoil spring will make the gun easier to rack, but the gun won’t function as reliably. Adding some external lever or handle might make it easier to manipulate, but it will make it harder to carry and more prone to malfunction (should the lever get hung up on anything.) This isn’t an apparent liability if all you do is square range target shooting.

Shooting is only part of the process. Getting the gun ready to shoot isn’t the whole equation. You still have to keep the gun running. Clearing malfunctions and reloading are also important skills. If we discount these operations then we could simply start with an unmodified gun in Condition One (loaded chamber, loaded magazine, and all safeties engaged) and hope for the best. There are also a complete set of techniques for one handed manipulation of a semi-auto handgun that work if you have the necessary strength and dexterity to accomplish them.

Consider a revolver. Depending on the existing limitations a revolver might be the answer, since there is no slide to rack, basic malfunction clearances are simple, but reloading can require a bit of dexterity. The trigger pull on a double action revolver is going to require more strength than most semi-autos.

Modern Military Combatives Programs

Posted by Mostly Genius – May 7, 2009

Hell-in-a-handbasket has a post up about some of the modern military combatives programs, but there are a few mistakes that need some clarification.

Previously military combatives systems had the primary goal of killing the enemy in close combat. The purpose for this was for things like POW Escape, sentry removal, or the rare “out of ammo” scenario. Contrast this with FM 3-25.150 (FM 21-150):

1-2. PURPOSES OF COMBATIVES TRAINING
Soldiers must be prepared to use different levels of force in an environment where conflict may change from low intensity to high intensity over a matter of hours. Many military operations, such as peacekeeping missions or noncombatant evacuation, may restrict the use of deadly weapons. Hand-to-hand combatives training will save lives when an unexpected confrontation occurs.

More importantly, combatives training helps to instill courage and self-confidence. With competence comes the understanding of controlled aggression and the ability to remain focused while under duress. Training in combatives includes hard and arduous physical training that is, at the same time, mentally demanding and carries over to other military pursuits. The overall effect of combatives training is—
• The culmination of a successful physical fitness program, enhancing individual and unit strength, flexibility, balance, and cardiorespiratory fitness.
• Building personal courage, self confidence, self-discipline, and esprit de corps.

So this is not some sort of “quick kill” system that has removed all of the martial arts “nonsense.” Far from it, some of these programs are complete martial arts in and of themselves, seeded with an amount of what I can only call “spiritual development” like you would find in any traditional martial art. I am sure that it has been “streamlined” but remember what the design goals are, it is not just the inefficient things that have been paired down. Most of the implementations of military combatives that I have seen have been a cross between a physical training event and morale event. There are competitions at all echelons, and these competitions need to be safe enough to not injure the participants.

The 260 hour black belt is certainly on par with many martial arts studios: working out 5 hours a week for a year and getting a black belt isn’t all that unusual. I do not believe that the military has lost its zeal for physical fitness and I am sure that these sessions are certainly physically taxing, but that can also be true of any physical training for a contact sport. More to the point that a belt rank really only has relevance within it’s own art. Ranks are awarded within the art in question for demonstrated knowledge of the material. Additionally, I would say that in most martial arts a black belt isn’t anything close to being a “master” but rather the place where you have enough of a foundation in the mechanics to actually start learning. It’s more of a high school diploma than a PhD.

The military has a lot of other things that it’s personnel need to do. Combatives are only the primary job of a very few combatives instructors. The average infantryman needs to maintain his physical fitness, equipment, marksmanship, career training, and a lot of mandatory administration. Fighting unarmed is not a top military priority.

Finally the “buddy with a gun” philosophy I consider to be an edge case justification for the curriculum. Should the corner stone of the system be the idea that you are alone, unarmed, and facing a single unarmed opponent? Should the strategy for winning that scenario be to fight to a stalemate and hope your friend shows up first?

I am actually a fan of the modern military combatives systems that I have been exposed to, but not for reasons of combat effectiveness or military necessity.