In my experience,I've seen a SF guy shooting perfectly grouped targets at the range and later that day knocking down a zombie and upon examination of the body had 4 shots to the body,none of which were grouped together.What I am trying to say is that classroom is totally differant than real world.The whole point of grouping for me(and I may be wrong) is to make sure I can hit where I am aiming.

Cassius wrote:

You can use your weaver, maybe everyone else has it wrong. I wanted to let you and everyone else know that the surgon works at a Las vegas hospitol and only teaches classes on call. He has a background in overseas trauma work and knows what he is talking about. Grouping is important to teach a shooter how to hit what they shoot at consistently, agreed. Combat shooting is not as neat, and more tramua over the body, the better. This kind of training isnt for everyone, if you want to keep the training wheels on, dont attend. There are plenty of lawn chair, lets all shoot online schools to attend out there. Cassius

I obviously was unclear both first and second time around, so i'll try again.
I use the Isosceles stance. I have trained in but select not to use Weaver; this is my personal choice. My point in my posts was not that Weaver is better or worse than isosceles, rather that Doron's explanation and reasoning was incorrect.

Isosceles = good
Weaver - not good (for me)
Doron explanation = incorrect
I do not have anything against not know Doron or CRI and wish all best of luck and success = 100% correct

Regarding the surgeon, whatever, i'm not getting emotion about it; it just sounded off center (lol) to me. i have never heard of the grouping issue. I read somewhere (online course?) that if you aim for a tight group, under stress it will probably spread out somewhat hence that's why we train for small groups regardless of "terminal effect" or "stopping power. I have never worked in the field as it were and have never ever operated under real lfe duress so cannot say for certain.

Regarding training wheels, why thank you for your permission kind Sir, i may indeed just lean back in my comfy chair and take an online course as you kindly recommend.

I however, from the comfort and safety of my armchair, truly and sincerely wish you the best of luck with your training and operational career.

H

cdutchess78 wrote:

In my experience,I've seen a SF guy shooting perfectly grouped targets at the range and later that day knocking down a zombie and upon examination of the body had 4 shots to the body,none of which were grouped together.What I am trying to say is that classroom is totally differant than real world.The whole point of grouping for me(and I may be wrong) is to make sure I can hit where I am aiming.

Aha, yes, exactly.

Stay safe

H

I know this is an old post and I assume theories and ideas have changed, but our new training module in LE is no longer 2 chest 1 head, its now 2-3 to the hips, 2 chest, 2 head, 3 more to chest and so forth untill the fucker drops. We use balloons to hold up paper targets via line. The balloon in set in a different spot each time. You shoot each target area until the balloon is popped and the target falls to the ground. As for grouping...I believe Doron, using his obvious second language, was trying to say that putting all your groups dead center is not optimal...but putting groups of shots in different places is best. If you can put 5 in one hole, then start practicing double tapping 5 areas of the body. Learned this same thing from a Viet Nam SF vet. They really push having 5-6 holes in the paper with 15 rounds being fired....if you know what I mean. Doron's outlook on the stances is a bit obscure, but he is Israili and they do things different. Id love to try the class, just to put on a resume "Counter Terror Training Cert." As for safety....well we have been known to use live blades, full speed in my Combatives class. If you have never felt the fear of knowing you can be injured, you stand to take a chance on freezing up during combat. Only the senior instructors paticipated and we are all very experienced with the blades we used. Yes we have scars...yes it was risky...yes I am still afraid of knives in untrained hands. But, I got the opportunity to use that training during a domestic call and I didnt freeze, and I didnt have to kill the drunk bastard. Its all in how you prefer to train. Personally, I like a little danger in my training. Keeps the cobwebs out. But Ive never been accused of being completely same....or overly smart. Im the nut that goes camping for 3 days, west TX. with nothing but a knife, fire striker, and a day pack...just to say I can do it...lol.(Wife hates it)

As for me, I will keep my body armor square with the threat. Also, exposing your side to the threat lines your vital organs up. You can live with one lung, but take a round from the side, through both lungs, and it will be very hard to keep you alive to reach the CASH.
Most training teaches you to aim center of mass. This is to try to insure a hit somewhere important in a moment of stress. This is fine if you are a so,so shooter. If you are better qualified, aim higher in the chest for a Heart/Lung shot. If he is wearing armor then go for the pelvic girdle to put him down and a head shot to finish. Trauma medicine has gone a long way in instructing us in what causes the most damage to our opponents. I have had M.D.'s instruct me in what causes the worst wounds and how to protect our own organs to survive.

2cats wrote:

As for me, I will keep my body armor square with the threat. Also, exposing your side to the threat lines your vital organs up. You can live with one lung, but take a round from the side, through both lungs, and it will be very hard to keep you alive to reach the CASH. Most training teaches you to aim center of mass. This is to try to insure a hit somewhere important in a moment of stress. This is fine if you are a so,so shooter. If you are better qualified, aim higher in the chest for a Heart/Lung shot. If he is wearing armor then go for the pelvic girdle to put him down and a head shot to finish. Trauma medicine has gone a long way in instructing us in what causes the most damage to our opponents. I have had M.D.'s instruct me in what causes the worst wounds and how to protect our own organs to survive.

Agreed. Last year's study revealed 61% of the total officer shooting deaths occurred through the arm-hole. 18% head shots. I wil always keep my "plates squared". With a 21% death rate of non-arm hole, non-head shot deaths, your chances of being shot dead with your arm-hole exposed are increased by almost 300% over plate-to-threat.

V/R

Oh yeah, with my stats' I have, I say......SCREW WEAVER!

What's sad is in January I went through Army 11B CQB training at Benning and they were not specifying between weaver or plate-to-threat.

V/R

ksleo wrote:

Oh yeah, with my stats' I have, I say......SCREW WEAVER! What's sad is in January I went through Army 11B CQB training at Benning and they were not specifying between weaver or plate-to-threat. V/R

That because the sad truth about the military...aside from DELTA and SEALS...is that they water down the training in order to get as many soldiers "qualified" as possible in the shortest amount of time. Some units are trying to correct this, but not very quickly.
Truth is...The "High Speed" training that Delta gets comes straight out of the L.A. SWAT manual. As far as regular military they are miles ahead but they dont get much more than a SWAT green horn right out of tac school. They have to be dead shots just to get in. DELTA doesnt teach them that. Now as far as intel gathering, SEAR and the other stuff, they get a lot more training. And they get to shoot 1000 rnds a week, where most LE agencies cant afford to have officers shoot 1000 rnds a year.
Point is, our military is skimping on training in order to save a buck and it makes me sick how watered down the instruction is. Ive met and shot with SPEC OPs guys that were horrible. They qualified, but never to the extent that they would pass our SWAT quals. 100% on all weapons was a go for our TAC team. That included pistol and extended range rifle. These former SEALS and Rangers were doing good to be in the 90% range. I was floored. Dont guage your training on the "go" status of the basic military standards and training.