Instructor Zero shares some advice for extracting from concealed carry. He demonstrates OWB and IWB tips and tactics to ensure a true draw with speed and accuracy.
Instructor Zero shares some advice for extracting from concealed carry. He demonstrates OWB and IWB tips and tactics to ensure a true draw with speed and accuracy.
Range Safety and Real World Safety | Why the Cardinal Rules Are Wrong for Self-Defense Shooting.
I’m sure if you have read any two of my articles you have seen me refer to range mentality at least once though chances are good it was twice. And I don’t think I have ever referred to it in a positive light. However, a recent conversation I had made it apparent that I have never directly addressed what range mentality is, and why I don’t like it. Since it’s a common topic for all gun owners with a self-defense mindset, I decided to lay out my feelings on the subject as directly as possible. In the hope that it may educate, alter attitudes, viewpoints, or perhaps introduce a new way to approach your personal practice and training regiments.
What is the Range Mentality?
The range is the setting for most of our training. It’s a sterile environment, mostly under someone else’s control, that only allows for limited degrees of realism based on its established safety rules, physical layout, any training dogma associated with the owner, lead instructor, range safety officers or administrator afraid of things that make loud noises (guns, usually). In law enforcement and the military, our ranges are held hostage by administrators and Kool Aid salesmen of varied usefulness. The rules vary from mostly common-sense to outright ridiculous and are often enforced with a draconian approach that is much at odds with the intended purpose of the range. For the private ranges, classic indoor, stalled environments, rules for the sake of safety are often far more restrictive because people are literally walking in off the street and usually don’t have to meet any requirements beyond providing ID and signing a waiver to use the range. One look around any given indoor range can show you that there are a lot of people out there lacking muzzle discipline or they are just bad shots. Everything on the range is safety first because firearms are inherently dangerous and people swallow this idea because it’s almost always the first concept they are taught before ever touching a firearm. Safety is always important, there’s no argument about that but the very nature of a range and the safety demands it creates (and others added on because of fear of litigation, or simple stupidity) turn the range environment into a breeding ground for bad training and bad practice.
The range is where the bulk of live fire training occurs, and because of this the safety rules of the range become the safety rules. They create a mentality in the shooter that is then taken home with them. Most of this mentality is useful in that it helps prevent negligence; however much of what the range won’t let you do is very applicable to real world self-defense situations. Trainers who subscribe to the rules of the range and don’t see the real world differently are guilty of adopting a range mentality. They are training students to defend themselves in their daily lives, but doing so according to rules that only apply to a specific setting; you can see the problem with this, no? Safety is paramount, but safety is also an individual commitment to common sense tactics.
The safety psyche is such a part of the shooters mentality that it is ever-present in our evaluation of things; allowing us to measure what we see based on real or imagined violations of the rules as we know them. Staged photographs are scrutinized for finger placement and videos evaluated for any sign of a range violation. God help you if you introduce, or simply make public an existing technique that violates a safety rule born on the range. Sometimes we spend so much time focused on the safety performance (usually weighed against personally held range rules) that we miss the point of what we are observing or learning. Safety is first, but range safety and real-world safety are two diametrically opposed practices.
The range and the real world do share some similar rules: treat every weapon as if it were loaded (except those we know are not because they are in our positive control), be aware of your target (I prefer threat) and what’s beyond it, and finger off the trigger until you are ready/willing to fire. That’s it! I’m sure some of you may be saying to yourselves but you missed one…That’s right, there are 4 cardinal safety rules and I only mentioned three. That’s because the fourth, never point your weapon at anything you are not willing to shoot simply isn’t possible in the real-world, or even at times on the range. When the gun clears the holster, comes out of the rack, trunk or bag, the muzzle is out of a safe direction. The real world is a potential 360 degree direction of fire where safety is one sided and many, many things will be muzzled even though we don’t intend to shoot them. It would be impossible to work with a firearm and never muzzle something that isn’t deserving of bullets. This is semantics to a small degree, though think to yourself and remember it ever being explained in that way. I know that my professional firearms instruction began in the military and it would be almost a decade before the concept was actually taught to me in this way. A small concept that drives a wedge deep between the range and the real world, it introduces an exception to the rules based on necessity, not want.
Taking the Range to the Streets
The military is actually pretty good about disregarding this rule in the real world. Combat deployments see all manner of unknown nouns have an overwhelming number of muzzles pointed at them with ready intent to fire at the first justifiable reason to do so. I don’t remember it ever being addressed; it was just a natural transition. For law enforcement it’s more of an individual issue and the environment isn’t one of war and weapons are rarely carried unholstered/at ready without provocation. What about when they are?
I was involved with a situation earlier in the year, where a few different alphabets were present, and most of us had guns trained on a single vehicle. Its occupant had been positively identified as a wanted, violent felon who was known to be armed and enjoyed shooting at people (cops, mostly). The car in question was completely tinted except the windshield, and we were all positioned to the rear. At any point the felon could have been aiming at us through the rear window and the tint would have prevented us from seeing it. There were two officers present from a department I had never interacted with before and neither of them were aimed in on the car. They were crouched, using their academy instructed SUL position (ironically both were muzzling their feet in this position). When another local agency ended the excitement by staging on the car and extracting the felon, I talked to these officers about their choice not to join in the mutual sight picture.
“We couldn’t see him.”
“But you knew he was there.”
“Yeah, couldn’t see him though.”
We could have argued the point, just like we can now. The fact remains that just because they couldn’t see him didn’t mean he couldn’t see them. The fact that we knew him to be in the car was more motivation to be prepared and the fact that he was armed with what was described, and later confirmed as a “rifle” meant it should have been all guns on deck. I can’t speak to their motivations for not maintaining a sight picture on the vehicle but I believe it to be a direct result of vague safety-related training practices that hammer home range-only rules that don’t apply to the 3D world. If you bring the range to the street, you are doing nothing to better your protective ability.
Before anyone disagrees with the premise, think of how often you muzzle yourself. Appendix, even some hip holsters, place you in a situation where you muzzle parts of your body. During the acts of holstering/unholstering you are doing so with active control of the weapon. This is a clear violation of muzzle awareness as the rule stands is it not? Now consider how often you muzzle things you have no intention of shooting. If your approach to self-defense shooting has been shaped by only shooting in one direction, with guns always pointed down range or at the deck when not shooting, I say that you would be much better prepared by more realistic approaches to training. It’s as simple as taking a look at your safety rules and adopting them to train in light of what we are training for.
The Four Cardinal Safety Rules are Range Rules, Not Real World Rules
It’s generally understood that the Cardinal Rules are designed to work together; I was once told that if you were doing any two of them at one time you couldn’t injure anyone who didn’t deserve it, and that’s generally true. However, it’s also apparent that some instructors, academies, and individuals hold these rules to a moral level of adherence without considering their actual application in everyday life. If you consider the thousands of possible variables that make each self-defense situation unique, you can find a perfectly justifiable reason for breaking or bending a few of these rules depending on how they are worded in your memory. The fact is, any time I’m not on a range and my weapon is out, it’s going to spend more time pointed at things I have no want or intention of shooting than things I do, unless I’m muzzling the bad guy. It’s also perfectly reasonable, depending on the situation to set the trigger in anticipation of firing before the actual need to do so exists. If I am feet away from a man with a knife, my finger is on the trigger and I’m pulling slack. If he decides to retain the knife and disobey commands, he in all likelihood will be shot. His backdrop may be a pitch black alley, or blinding light, or a high hedge, and I may have no idea what is actually beyond him, I must go with what I know and not defend my life based on what I don’t know about his backdrop. Doing otherwise is ridiculous. As far as treating the firearm as if it’s loaded, that’s one I can almost always comply with, except when I need to treat it like its unloaded. The firearm does not exist in a neat box that controls where it can be pointed and where it can’t; there are no limits or ceiling that regulates its arc of travel in any direction. It is aimed as we wish and this is something that more people should consider when training and practicing.
I hear it all the time and read it even more “Don’t break 180.” This 180 degree imaginary line that makes up the firing line; a line we are not supposed to move our muzzle past in either direction. This line doesn’t exist and on most ranges, its much less than 180 degrees. This rule has no place in the real world.
Real World, as Applied at the Range
Training on the range means there will be some artificialities; range design may prevent high-angle shooting such as a hip fire to the chest of a threat in close quarters, or you may not be able to fire from the deck due to a back drop limitation. You may only be able to shoot in one direction and you may not be able to move. These are problems that can be overcome to a degree but some safety constrains will always exist when it comes to live fire. In the simplest terms, safety on the range is not shooting yourself, other shooters, objects not intended to be shot and it is also not muzzling things that do not deserve to be muzzled. It is doing anything, so long as it is safe and it makes sense. Pointing our weapon in the safest direction possible at all times is the only real cardinal rule. That direction may be straight up to maneuver in or exit a car, which is a huge range no-no that sounds nice, but doesn’t often conform to reality. That direction may be down to push through a crowd or make movement to cover, or just off sight picture of an unknown person to splash them with light from a weapon mounted light in order to make a positive ID. These are but a few examples of thousands of possible situations where what works on the range isn’t going to live up to the real world.
I am making no attempt to replace the Cardinal Rules, I am flatly stating that I have no intention of using them. They belong on a range that isn’t preparing shooters for the real world and I’m not part of that mindset. Safety is a primary concern of mine, make no mistake about that, but my approach must be as realistic as the situations I encounter. There is a lot of good in the Cardinal Rules, but I have my own. Similarities aside, the following make much more sense as far as I’m concerned.
All safe and logical actions are acceptable.
Know the condition of your weapon at all times.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are confronting a known threat and willing to fire.
Be aware of your muzzle direction at all times and point it in the safest direction possible.
Be aware of your threat and angle of fire, minimize unsafe back drop as you are able.
My rules are five in number-just one more-but one more is important to me and rules shouldn’t be pared down for the sake of convenience, there should be as many as needed. I will again say that I am making no attempt to reinvent the wheel, my rules are what they are; when compared to the standard accepted rules, mine make far more sense both on and off the range. Those who have toiled under the Cardinal Rules for a few decades may find plenty of reason to not like my approach and for them I don’t have much to say that has not already been said. I train and teach on a range, but the fight doesn’t happen there. The range needs to mimic real life as much as possible, and nervous, overbearing safety constraints are detrimental to good training. If an instructor is speaking against a skill or technique, is it because it isn’t safe, or because it isn’t range safe? If you sincerely want to learn self-defense skills, you need not concern yourself with instructors presenting techniques for gunfights that have been conceptualized within the confines of the range.
Lead Instructor – Sage Dynamics
You have just disarmed your gun-wielding attacker, what do you do next?
Ryan Hoover discusses the reality of relieving an attacker of their firearm during a violent confrontation and turning it back on them. While the idea of eliminating a threat with their own weapon is an appealing notion, the reality of such actions are much more complicated.
We have observed many examples in movies and television where the above idea is played out before our very eyes successfully. According to Hoover though, an attempt to do so may leave you as vulnerable as the initial engagement, may injure other people, and is seldom the appropriate response to such situations.
According to Ryan the question: “Why wouldn’t you step back and shoot the assailant?” assumes too many variables, mainly; you are familiar with the weapon, the firearm is real and functions properly, the firearm is loaded, and the individual in question possesses the ability to put accurate shots on target and not endanger innocent people in the immediate area.
During a high-speed, high-stress, and dynamic situation like an armed confrontation, the above variables are a great deal to assume. In life-or-death situations, incorrect assumptions may very well lead to your own, or another’s grievous injury.
Ryan Hoover, in his honest and open way, recognizes that certain situations and individuals may possess this exact ability, but he goes on to state that with such a large opportunity for fatal error, he would prefer to utilize his personal, or natural weapons (Punches, Elbows, Kicks, Head-butts, et cetera). Using the firearm as a blunt force weapon, and furthermore, striking with the muzzle is not only an effective technique, it also allows us to control the line of fire. He believes this also provides us increased control, and also allows an individual to rely on a more familiar set of skills thus being able to perform more effectively under duress.
While not the situation most fantasize about, if we are able to critically assess our own strengths and weaknesses, I believe that Ryan is ‘on the money’ with his view. We would all love to believe that we would perform flawlessly in such an extreme situation. Unless you have spent considerable time training in high-stress scenarios with firearms, engaging with your natural weapons may be the safest response for yourself, and those in your immediate environment.
Train well, Train often
In this video, Instructor Zero details why simply “checking left and right” in a methodical fashion is only a range drill and not adequate in a reality contest. While some may argue that routinely scanning after each discharge builds muscle memory that breaks tunnel vision, this has not proven to be the case under stress in real life deadly force encounters. In fact, Instructor Zero argues that it is a waste of time to do this each and every time during training as it wastes valuable time and energy in a training regiment where individual skills are trained.
In firearms training, scanning your environment immediately after a shooting has gone the way of the office “how ya doin?” We do it instinctively without giving it much thought and we do it without meaning. While muscle memory has its benefits in certain aspects of training, building incorrect muscle memory can be a disservice to progress.
As an example, when you are at the range working on your extraction, it detracts from the technical learning process. When working on accuracy, it becomes a monotonous futile exercise that serves no real purpose when sh!t hits the fan.
What are your thoughts on this? As with everything Instructor Zero teaches, this is only an option. The validity of which solely rests upon its validation and logical application on the basis of YOUR personal experiences.
The below video shows a man attempting to rob a convenience store clerk at gunpoint. As seen, the clerk calmly bends over and retrieves his own firearm which he points directly at the assailant.
The two men are now trapped in a stand-off, with either men willing to pull the trigger. As I have discussed before, presenting a firearm may add fuel to the fire during a confrontation, and knowing how to properly handle a firearm during an altercation is an essential set of skills.
As you can see, the clerk is being quite casual with how he is wielding his firearm, and on two occasions the assailant attempts to swat the clerk’s pistol away. In Canada, we do not have any laws that allow us to carry concealed or open, but in my mind, once you draw a firearm and point it at a living being, you better be prepared to pull the trigger. Luckily in this instance both parties survived, and the clerk was able to go home safely. It was later determined that the firearm possessed by the robber was in fact a BB Gun, but whether the clerk knew this in the instant is unknown.
The first thing that I pull from the video is the way in which the clerk handles his firearm. He has the gun far away from his body, with only one hand on his weapon, and he does not seem to be completely in control. He is utilizing a ridiculous “gangster-style” grip with the gun canted and his elbow high, guaranteeing poor control over the firearm, and almost no ability to aim. Learning how to use your body language, voice, and firearm techniques in sync is a necessary skill set I believe which will aid in enabling you to survive a violent altercation.
I firmly believe that most CCW holders do not possess a desire to hurt or kill anyone, but if you pull out a firearm in response to being presented with the business end of someone else’s, I think it is time to act, and not negotiate. I do not condone violence as a first response, but had the robber been properly armed, or more intent with his actions the clerk may not have fared so well.
This also highlights the need for proper unarmed training, or learning how to properly control an aggressor. To play the ‘armchair operator’ had I been in the same situation, you would see a radically different attitude in my body language, and I would have been demanding compliance. Had these commands not been followed, I highly doubt I would have stood there arguing and and allowing myself to get into a shoving match. Since this is completely theoretical, take from it what you will, just know that the violence of action has saved many people from becoming victims.
How would you have handled this situation? What training do you participate in that would have allowed you to fare better than the clerk?
Train well, train often!