Category: skill

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.

Handgun Retention

Posted by Mostly Genius – April 23, 2009

Much of the argument that people will be disarmed of their weapons and have those weapons used against them stems from a long history of police officers being shot with their own firearms. To combat this problem law enforcement has adopted various handgun retention systems.

While the private citizen carrying a concealed firearm isn’t as likely to be a target for a disarm while the firearm is holstered, I can certainly see a number of scenarios where an assailant might make an attempt against a drawn gun.

If a criminal doesn’t believe that you are going to shoot, or is willing to risk a bullet to escape arrest they might decide to try to do a disarm.

Get good equipment. I frequently see $1000 guns in $20 holsters, worn on $2 belts. A good holster and a belt are a significant portion of the holstered retention equation. Cheap holsters will not keep the gun from falling out, or will rip right off of the belt leaving the attachment loops behind. Holsters that snap or clip onto the belt offer almost no resistance. I highly recommend purchasing high quality holsters, and belts. While much more expensive they truly do last much longer so the expense is justified in the long run.

Use good ready positions. Some ready positions lend themselves to gun grabs more readily than others. The weaker the position the more inviting it is for a grab. The classic low-ready (arms extended at about a 45 degree angle) is one of the worst for both shooting and retention. Keeping the firearm tucked against the body is the mechanically strongest un-holstered position.

Don’t use the wrong tactics. People that want to hold the assailant at gun point until the police arrive expose themselves to a greater risk of disarm attempts. The time spent in proximity to the criminal is a window of opportunity for something to go wrong. Complicating that with trying to dial 911 and communicate with the dispatcher creates a distraction that most people could do without. It would be better to get a good description and have them run and then call the police after they have left. The legal justification for using your firearm is a threat to your life, the subject’s non-compliance may or may not constitute a threat that you can justify shooting him for. It would be much better for us if we didn’t have to shoot anyone.

You can’t always ‘Just shoot’ them. A common answer to people grabbing for an un-holstered handgun is to shoot the person making the grab, but this isn’t always as simple as it sounds. If the assailant has a hold on the gun it can retard the action of the slide (or bind the cylinder on a revolver) preventing more than one round from firing. When the gun discharges it might not be oriented toward the assailant, so gambling on the ‘one shot stop’ is even less of a good bet.

There is also whole class of gun-grabbers that we don’t want to shoot. It might be a friend or spouse who thinks you are over-reacting, it might be the 70 year old grandmother of the assailant who just wants to protect their grandchild. We might be able to make the argument that shooting this class of people is legally justified by the circumstances but again, it would be preferable not to have to do so.

Martial arts or combatives might help you. These can fulfill at least part of the role of retaining the gun. The problem is that a lot of martial arts are largely incompatible for fighting with a drawn gun. Whatever arts or techniques you intend to apply must maintain control of the muzzle and be aware that this fight is going to take place in a clinch. If you need distance to execute your technique you are probably not going to get it. Losing control of the firearm generally means that you are now in the position of needing to perform a disarm in order to ultimately retain the gun. Disarming techniques are part of retention.

Don’t abandon the gun. I have seen it advocated to let go of the gun, and either transition to another weapon or apply combatives or martial arts techniques to recover it. It would never be my primary plan to loose physical control of the gun. At best such a strategy provides the assailant with a club, and at worst a fully functioning firearm.

Transition to another weapon. I am all for transitioning to another weapon if it is available, but I would keep control of the primary whenever possible. In such a situation I would prefer a knife to a backup firearm. A few good cuts should produce some psychological and mechanical advantage.

Verbal Commands

Posted by Mostly Genius – April 22, 2009

Verbal commands are frequently an under utilized self-defense tool. Verbal commands can be applied early, without liability, and throughout the encounter in conjunction with other levels of force. You can issue verbal commands while simultaneously applying strikes, pepper spray, or gun fire.

Remove Ambiguity. Issuing verbal commands can help you determine if someone is really a threat. A stranger approaching you in a dark parking lot might be perfectly innocent, but the potential for danger is too high to make this assumption. The circumstances are not in your favor. If you yell “Stop! Don’t come any closer!” most normal people would probably stop, especially if they actually didn’t intend to do you harm. To continue approaching someone who is telling you to stop is threatening, To approach faster is very threatening.

Create Hesitation. Getting a command to stop will force many people to hesitate, especially if they haven’t committed to a course of action yet. That hesitation buys you a little bit more time to escape, prepare to fight, or further evaluate the situation.

Provide Direction. Tell the assailant what you want him to do. Let Go! or Go Away! in conjunction with another level of force tells the assailant how to avoid getting hurt (or getting hurt any more). If they are now facing your drawn handgun they might not know what to do – the problem has moved off of their mental map sheet. We don’t want the assailant to ‘freeze’ like on a bad TV show, we want him to run as far and as fast as his little criminal feet will carry him.

Alert the Witnesses. Many crimes need to happen in isolation. If you can draw a crowd you might be able to prevent the attack. Maybe there is someone that will come and help us, but at a minimum we are establishing who is the defender and who is the aggressor. This sets the context for all our other actions in the mind of the witnesses. If we have already shouted Stop! Stay Back!and the assailant has closed the distance then we have a justification for using another level of force, and we have clarified our role as defender for any potential witnesses.

Training, Practice, and Testing

Posted by Mostly Genius – April 20, 2009

Training is taking a class. I am trying to stretch this definition into reading a book, watching a video, but it really boils down to being taught something by someone. There are some subjects that can be “self-taught” but really fighting and/or shooting isn’t one of them. I would also say that getting a few “tips”, or “pointers” from somebody really isn’t training either. I can tell you to look at your front sight and press the trigger, but that isn’t the same as “training” you to actually do it. Without feedback and correction it isn’t really training.

Practice is going to the range (or it’s equivalent.) This where you repeat what you have learned in training. Practice makes you better at what you know, but it doesn’t do much for learning new things. If you practice looking at your front sight and pressing the trigger it won’t make you better at reloading the gun or clearing malfunctions. Practice is what creates a “habit” (good or bad.) Undisciplined practice really isn’t practice at all. I see people at the range all the time making their guns go bang: magazine after magazine, box after box of ammo, and they never seem to show any improvement.

Testing is any sort of competition. Shooting IPSC/IDPA, ring fighting or martial arts tournaments are an objective measure of a set of skills. It’s not combat, but it is being forced to produce results under stress. There are those in the “tactical” shooting world that dismiss the guys that play gun games as “gamesmen” or point out that some piece of the game isn’t really “real world.” I would point out that the top-tier military units all seek out and train with the best competitive shooters and try to learn speed, accuracy and gun handling from them. They don’t seem to have any problem with tactics or real world performance.