Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Top 5 Lies on YT Gun Channels
#1


Governmental dependance makes for poor self reliance.

"What could possibly go wrong with a duct tape boat?"  Cody Lundin

The best defense against evil men are good men with violent skill sets.
Reply
#2
Bold statements - most of which I agree with. I don't know that I like his attitude or presentation, but he may be just trying to get a response period.

Agreements -
4. Amen on the iron sights! $h!t happens...
5. Most important thing is hit the target, and after a minimum or even .380 or so, a lot of the rest is luck/situation.

Slight Disagreements -
1. Close enough and I'll point-shoot or even hip shoot. But mostly aim.
2. Never heard the "no fine motor under stress" thing
3. Empty chamber is a choice; Yes it costs time. There are other considerations besides speed.
Reply
#3
This is the comment I left on his YT channel:

Quote:Most of your points are valid.  However, point shooting is a valid training technique and it works.  I know, I've done it.  Secondly, Israeli-carry is a valid technique and when properly trained is 'maybe' a tenth of a second slower than chambered carry.  I know, I've done it and teach it (along with chambered carry).  I'm proficient in both methods.  And yes, you can fight H2H, draw, chamber, shoot if necessary without issue.  Again, I know as I've done it.  Preach to the points you're proficient and trained in but refrain from commenting on techniques you are not trained in.

In short, I'll have a discussion all day long on various training techniques and methodologies.  But if a person is going to be dogmatic on a technique or methodology they quite obviously have no training or real-world experience in then they are arguing from a position of ignorance.  I'm interested in someone's real-world experience rather than their uninformed opinion. 

In a combat situation, I'll point shoot within 15 yards if necessary.  And although I carry with one chambered, as per agency policy, I have no reservations whatsoever carrying empty chamber because I'm trained to do so proficiently.  I know it works in the most extreme circumstances because I've carried that way in some pretty damn extreme circumstances.     

Having said that;

Iron sights are the way to go.  Although I like and enjoy the modern do-dads, iron sights don't run on batteries.  

Shot placement trumps caliber.  

You 'can' lose refined motor skills under duress/stress which is why gross motor skill techniques are more useable and retained longer in long term memory.  

And I'll add one of my favorites he didn't cover;  A manual thumb safety adds only positives and absolutely no negatives.
Governmental dependance makes for poor self reliance.

"What could possibly go wrong with a duct tape boat?"  Cody Lundin

The best defense against evil men are good men with violent skill sets.
Reply
#4
He does come off as a blowhard, but that's pretty much what you get with tactical instructors.
His arguments are all valid to a point.

1. Anyone who has taken the time to become truly proficient will be able to point shoot at close targets. In the real world, the target will be close. The muscle memory to point shoot comes naturally from practicing aimed fire so this is a non-issue for anyone who trains.

2. The argument that dropping the slide is a fine motor skill has been around for years and it's always been bullshit. Moving your thumb in a slight downward motion is about as gross as a motor skill can be.

3. Carrying on an empty chamber is never a good idea. There are no valid reasons to do so. People get enamored with "The Israeli Method" because they respect the people, not because it's a good method. It was developed for safety when arming an untrained populace. If you are untrained, the solution to get trained, not handicap yourself.

4. Everyone who shoots should know how to use iron sights. The argument that every long gun needs backup sights is becoming harder to justify with the durability and battery life of really good optics, but it's still a good idea.

5. The caliber debates will never end because we are all too tribal. He is correct that whatever you choose, you need to make the hits. The "Rimfire defense" thread on GT has been going for a long time. I posted in there years ago that if it's all someone can handle, a 25rd mag of stingers is nothing to sneeze at.
Reply
#5
(03-05-2019, 02:57 PM)Ronin.45 Wrote: He does come off as a blowhard, but that's pretty much what you get with tactical instructors.
His arguments are all valid to a point.

1. Anyone who has taken the time to become truly proficient will be able to point shoot at close targets. In the real world, the target will be close. The muscle memory to point shoot comes naturally from practicing aimed fire so this is a non-issue for anyone who trains.

2. The argument that dropping the slide is a fine motor skill has been around for years and it's always been bullshit. Moving your thumb in a slight downward motion is about as gross as a motor skill can be.

3. Carrying on an empty chamber is never a good idea. There are no valid reasons to do so. People get enamored with "The Israeli Method" because they respect the people, not because it's a good method. It was developed for safety when arming an untrained populace. If you are untrained, the solution to get trained, not handicap yourself.

4. Everyone who shoots should know how to use iron sights. The argument that every long gun needs backup sights is becoming harder to justify with the durability and battery life of really good optics, but it's still a good idea.

5. The caliber debates will never end because we are all too tribal. He is correct that whatever you choose, you need to make the hits. The "Rimfire defense" thread on GT has been going for a long time. I posted in there years ago that if it's all someone can handle, a 25rd mag of stingers is nothing to sneeze at.

Yeah, this ^^^^^^^^^
Reply
#6
Dogmatic was a good choice of words Dave. HIS needs/choices/situation may not be everyones (in fact, are certainly not)

Ronin - all great points, but I'll still disagree w/ #3 and here is an example of the reason. Based on the weapon and your amount of skill/training, it may be safer for yourself and other to not carry with one in the chamber.

You can argue that in that situation that you shouldn't carry, or that you need more training. While that may be true, there are all of the 'middle situations where having a weapon is a benefit, even if one loses a second or two racking, or is not up to "Israeli" standards....

Again - Dogma....
Reply
#7
(03-07-2019, 11:36 PM)Bob Wrote: Dogmatic was a good choice of words Dave.  HIS needs/choices/situation may not be everyones (in fact, are certainly not)

Ronin - all great points, but I'll still disagree w/ #3 and here is an example of the reason.  Based on the weapon and your amount of skill/training, it may be safer for yourself and other to not carry with one in the chamber.

You can argue that in that situation that you shouldn't carry, or that you need more training.  While that may be true, there are all of the 'middle situations where having a weapon is a benefit, even if one loses a second or two racking, or is not up to "Israeli" standards....

Again - Dogma....

 If you are unsafe with a loaded gun, you shouldn't be carrying one.
Reply
#8
Loaded or unloaded, I would encourage carrying chambered.

Although, when the wife first started carrying she wasn't comfortable carrying with one in the chamber. She was afraid she would do something wrong or the gun would just go off. So she carried unchambered and I kept taking her to the range. She came to trust that the firearm would function as it was designed and wouldn't magically go off and she grew confident in her own skills. This was a couple month process.

So, I do agree that you should carry chambered. In this case, she needed more training and just more confidence. The ability to carry unchambered helped her gain that confidence because she had the skills, just not the confidence. Getting her into IDPA helped her confidence greatly. I have adjusted my opinion on the matter.
Reply
#9
Chambered vs. unchambered is always a point of controversy.  I see it as a paradigm.  A person is trained in a specific, commonly accepted methodology.  A polar opposite seems odd, unusable, silly etc.  

While it may or may not be true that the method referred to as Israeli-carry was designed for untrained or poorly trained soldiers, it isn't true today in the modern IDF.  And they still use unchambered carry today.  My wife's BIL, niece and nephew were all IDF.  Two were extremely high-level IDF and very well trained on multiple weapon platforms.  They used Israeli carry exclusively and effectively.  In fact, my niece (who's a badass in her own right) captured a suicide bomber (vest failed to detonate) at gunpoint after a high-speed chase.  She was carrying Israeli style, under extreme stress in an extremely volatile situation against a determined and terminally violent bad guy.  The methodology and training worked as intended.

Having lived in the Middle East, having trained to the point of becoming an instructor, I feel qualified to speak with some (humble) authority on the topic.  It isn't a 'second or two' slower.  If it is any slower at all it is measured in one or two-tenths of a second.  That measure of time is meaningless.  After just a weeks worth of training, I was drawing from under clothing, chambering a round and firing a round on target without difficulty.  It was timed and although I don't recall the exact time on the timer, it was as fast as I was drawing with a round chambered at the beginning of the course.  Any difference was minuscule.  I was able to fight off an attacker (and I mean FIGHT) and still draw, chamber and fire on a different target.  It can be done.  It isn't an unreachable goal, it simply requires dedicated training.  And the majority of situation won't necessarily require split-second draws anyway.

And it would eliminate AD/ND since there is no round to go off (not counting AD/ND while actually pointing a firearm at someone and being startled for example).  

So while I'm not going to say someone is wrong for carrying chambered, I the reverse is applicable as well.  It is a personal choice and it all boils down to training.
Governmental dependance makes for poor self reliance.

"What could possibly go wrong with a duct tape boat?"  Cody Lundin

The best defense against evil men are good men with violent skill sets.
Reply
#10
IMO, if you are trained in carrying an unloaded gun (unchambered round) stick to that. If you are trained in carrying loaded then stick to that. I wouldn't switch methods mid stream if one is trained in one or the other.* Personally I was trained in carrying loaded and that's what I teach my students.

*Back in the day I took and Israeli method class and tried carrying that way for awhile. Couldn't stand not having one up the pipe since carrying loaded was so ingrained. So I will reiterate, stick to the way you were initially trained one way or the other.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)