- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
Same...so much the same!
But the seats are are assigned and leather reclinable, we are at the very top row so there will be no one behind us, the boy wants to go opening night, and I'll be wearing my Sig.
John Wick - (NO spoilers)
- Thread starter Ooh-Rah
- Start date
But the seats are are assigned and leather reclinable, we are at the very top row so there will be no one behind us, the boy wants to go opening night, and I'll be wearing my Sig.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 438
In just about every "typical" situation muzzle-down leads to better outcomes than up.
I'll let Kyle lay it out.
To be fair, this actually works. A trained combat glider will have tighter patterns while shooting on the move than someone just diddy-bopping their way downrange. Great.
But it only works by 'working' against the way the human body actually operates. It's all muscle tension all day. This quickly leads to fatigue, shakes, and jacked up necks. Our bodies are designed to operate a certain way. Upright. Many lessons have been learned in recent years, largely coming out of professional athletics, the scientific study of body mechanics, ergonomics, and kinesiology. Learning these lessons and applying them to shooting on the move led to a very different body posture. One that exploits the way the body actually works and takes advantage of it, rather than fighting against it.
All else being equal, someone who masters shooting on the move in the new way will be more proficient than someone who does the combat glide. Full stop. The combat glide is measurably worse. Sure, guys can get very good at it, and many have. I've got at least a couple hundred hours combat gliding. I know we don't want to offend people, but TTP's matter - it's literally life and death. It's not a matter of opinion, with all opinions equally valid.
There are of course any number of imaginable scenarios where a muzzle-up ready makes sense over muzzle-down, I mean, we live in a world of infinite possibility. But the reality is, that in most typical scenarios that we train for, a muzzle-down ready is measurably better.
That kind of shallow "understanding" doesn't equip anyone to extend their knowledge, or develop something new, or adapt it to new situations. It's brittle. But it's also sticky. When folks like me catch flak for daring to try to understand what we're supposedly being taught, it teaches other to shut the hell up and just go along with it. And with that kind of a culture, the rationale behind things gets lost real quick. In the time it takes for a single person to rotate, that info can die.
[little text in square brackets in the following paragraph are 'for examples']
It may well be that thing "x" [control over fine motor movement degrades under stressful conditions, detailed finger manipulations like surgery or tying a fly are fine motor movements] being taught is correct and great. Then something (the world, technology, whatever) changes, and "x" is no longer relevant as a result - or "x" just get's misapplied [sweeping your thumb forward after an AR-style magazine exchange to release the bolt is finger stuff - must be a fine motor movement right? better not do that, slap that bolt release with your palm!]. But if no one around knows why "x" was being taught in the first place or any of the background info [actually, that is NOT a fine motor movement - not everything with fingers is (after all, we somehow retain the ability to pull triggers under stress without resorting to slapping them with our whole hand), also the M-16 and derivatives were intentionally designed such that the bolt release is within easy reach of the typical user's thumb when grasping the magazine well], then no one is equipped to challenge or change it. "x" then becomes an article of faith, tradition, or tribal signaling [look at that dumb boot using his thumb, clearly hasn't received our training] (hmmm, only one group in a large and varied community uses a particular iconic and cool-looking technique that is otherwise largely discredited?).
I somehow continue to be galled by how willing the military at large is to accept group think and politically/socially motivated judgements (but the General said...., don't want to offend so-and-so) when DEATH is on the line. Hubris.
Hijack/rant OVER.
I'll let Kyle lay it out.
WARNING:
Apparently this fired me up, rant below:
Apparently this fired me up, rant below:
Disagree. A quick search here for "combat glide" will yield several posts I've made over the years talking about my experience as an instructor working to update our tactics - one of my favorite anecdotes. Previously (since the mid-80's when modern CQB TTP's were "originally" being developed by 1st Force, LAPD SWAT, and CAG) guys would train this tactic to isolate bounce (caused by walking) to the lower half of the body. This was traditionally trained by hanging weight around your neck, and holding something between your knees. You'd bend waaaay forward at the waist and treat your body like a tank turret from the waist up, treads from the waist down.
To be fair, this actually works. A trained combat glider will have tighter patterns while shooting on the move than someone just diddy-bopping their way downrange. Great.
But it only works by 'working' against the way the human body actually operates. It's all muscle tension all day. This quickly leads to fatigue, shakes, and jacked up necks. Our bodies are designed to operate a certain way. Upright. Many lessons have been learned in recent years, largely coming out of professional athletics, the scientific study of body mechanics, ergonomics, and kinesiology. Learning these lessons and applying them to shooting on the move led to a very different body posture. One that exploits the way the body actually works and takes advantage of it, rather than fighting against it.
All else being equal, someone who masters shooting on the move in the new way will be more proficient than someone who does the combat glide. Full stop. The combat glide is measurably worse. Sure, guys can get very good at it, and many have. I've got at least a couple hundred hours combat gliding. I know we don't want to offend people, but TTP's matter - it's literally life and death. It's not a matter of opinion, with all opinions equally valid.
There are of course any number of imaginable scenarios where a muzzle-up ready makes sense over muzzle-down, I mean, we live in a world of infinite possibility. But the reality is, that in most typical scenarios that we train for, a muzzle-down ready is measurably better.
Paul's line at 3:08 is insightful, and speaks to something that happens a lot and really bugs me. I was always that annoying kid in my military schools who wanted to actually understand, and not just memorize by rote, what we were "learning". Yeah, my hand was often up. Most of the time, if I asked a probing question (why does that work, what's the theory, where did that come from, etc.) got groans and another regurgitation of the script the instructors had memorized (here's looking at you TRADOC with actual, literal scripts). Why? Because they didn't know. They didn't understand the material, they had just memorized it.
That kind of shallow "understanding" doesn't equip anyone to extend their knowledge, or develop something new, or adapt it to new situations. It's brittle. But it's also sticky. When folks like me catch flak for daring to try to understand what we're supposedly being taught, it teaches other to shut the hell up and just go along with it. And with that kind of a culture, the rationale behind things gets lost real quick. In the time it takes for a single person to rotate, that info can die.
[little text in square brackets in the following paragraph are 'for examples']
It may well be that thing "x" [control over fine motor movement degrades under stressful conditions, detailed finger manipulations like surgery or tying a fly are fine motor movements] being taught is correct and great. Then something (the world, technology, whatever) changes, and "x" is no longer relevant as a result - or "x" just get's misapplied [sweeping your thumb forward after an AR-style magazine exchange to release the bolt is finger stuff - must be a fine motor movement right? better not do that, slap that bolt release with your palm!]. But if no one around knows why "x" was being taught in the first place or any of the background info [actually, that is NOT a fine motor movement - not everything with fingers is (after all, we somehow retain the ability to pull triggers under stress without resorting to slapping them with our whole hand), also the M-16 and derivatives were intentionally designed such that the bolt release is within easy reach of the typical user's thumb when grasping the magazine well], then no one is equipped to challenge or change it. "x" then becomes an article of faith, tradition, or tribal signaling [look at that dumb boot using his thumb, clearly hasn't received our training] (hmmm, only one group in a large and varied community uses a particular iconic and cool-looking technique that is otherwise largely discredited?).
I somehow continue to be galled by how willing the military at large is to accept group think and politically/socially motivated judgements (but the General said...., don't want to offend so-and-so) when DEATH is on the line. Hubris.
Paul Howe said:
Hijack/rant OVER.
A lot of wisdom in that post.
I remember working as a weapons/marksmanship instructor, and spending a large portion of my time doing what I called "myth busting".
Stupid shit like why do rso's jam a brass rod down your muzzle before entering the range? Most reasonable people believed it was to ensure nothing was stuck in the muzzle. The real reason is that it was a carry over from a marksmanship training manual from the 1800's. Where they used a brass rod to ensure soldiers didn't double charge their musket.
Or for instants Paul Howe's explanation of why the SEAL's use high ready and how it became popular. Yet high ready (or more specifically Port Arms) has been used pretty well since the time of the musket. But to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with Paul Howe or Kyle Lamb with regards to speed or accuracy. They obviously know better than me.
I will say that since the modern rifle has been on the battlefield, high ready has been a common way to carry a rifle, it's a comfortable way to carry, especially if you spend a lot of time in fighting positions, working around obstructions, in and out of multiple positions, etc.
Very limited use in CQB, but still a time and place.
Great find on the videos...
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,704
John Wick could go muzzle facing the rear with no magazine and still fuck up everyone in small arms range.
John Wick is so awesome that you could give him a 20 gauge coach gun with a broken trigger and a single 16 gauge BB load, and the next thing you know there would be two dead gangsters 100 yards away with 12 gauge slugs in their foreheads.
muzzle up muzzle down - John Wick aint got tome for dat
John Wick is so awesome that you could give him a 20 gauge coach gun with a broken trigger and a single 16 gauge BB load, and the next thing you know there would be two dead gangsters 100 yards away with 12 gauge slugs in their foreheads.
muzzle up muzzle down - John Wick aint got tome for dat
LibraryLady
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 5,071
I am by no means knowledgeable about any of this and I respect if I get shit for it, but the way Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan explains and demonstrates the high ready entry method in that video with Keanu Reeves, makes a lot of sense to me, particularily that "punching out" part. That wouldn't apply with the low ready if the enemy appears to be that close, so overall it seems technicaly more efficient and "safer" ( in terms of maintaining control over your weapon - not necessarily muzzle control <- what Paul Howe explains also makes lot of sense in regards to safety ) in an engagement. Just my personal observation based on what I see.
LibraryLady
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 5,071
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,704
On a related note - I think we should start debating the validity of John Wick using Central Axis Relock next - because the hell with the movie - I just want to poke holes in every single bit of unrealistic or overly hyped tactics being used in Hollywood........
........later we can start tearing the soul out of all the uniform violations that end up in war movies.
........later we can start tearing the soul out of all the uniform violations that end up in war movies.
Brill
SOF Support
Recommend starting at the very beginning: debate the validity of Keanu Reeves as an actor
Wall of Shame :: WINM :: Defending Keanu Reeves
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
Devildoc
Verified Military
@Board and Seize , I am a day late and a dollar short on this thread. RE: your excellent and eloquent post above you highlight my significant issue with military and LE instructors: they are instructors, not teachers. Sure, they may have had a methodology class here or there, but there is often so little teaching. If something works, I wanna know why. If it doesn't, I wanna know why. If several techniques are different but work equally well, I wanna know why.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
@Ocoka -
Go see this movie, might inspire you to get TR a partner....what they have these Mal's do in the flick is crazy!
To add -
I'll admit now that '2' had me a little down....I was concerned that '1' was a flash in the pan. Guys....'3' is better than `1`, at least that is how I am feeling right now!
Go see this movie, might inspire you to get TR a partner....what they have these Mal's do in the flick is crazy!
To add -
I'll admit now that '2' had me a little down....I was concerned that '1' was a flash in the pan. Guys....'3' is better than `1`, at least that is how I am feeling right now!
Last edited:
3 fucking delivered.
2nd row turned out to be good seats after all, my ears are still ringing.
2nd row turned out to be good seats after all, my ears are still ringing.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
Random film viewing observation -
When I saw it opening night it was at an AMC with 3D Dolby Sound. What an experience! The seat would literally rumble during explosions and when he switched to the armor piercing shotgun shells the ‘bangs’ sounded like they were happening right next me. There were times I felt like I was ‘in’ the movie.
When I saw it again, it was at an AMC, but not the same sound experience. It was ‘loud’, but I did not feel part of the movie like I did with the Dolby sound. Something I really need to take into consideration then next time I go see a flick....
When I saw it opening night it was at an AMC with 3D Dolby Sound. What an experience! The seat would literally rumble during explosions and when he switched to the armor piercing shotgun shells the ‘bangs’ sounded like they were happening right next me. There were times I felt like I was ‘in’ the movie.
When I saw it again, it was at an AMC, but not the same sound experience. It was ‘loud’, but I did not feel part of the movie like I did with the Dolby sound. Something I really need to take into consideration then next time I go see a flick....
