Author Topic: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun  (Read 10155 times)


endurance

  • Guest
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2015, 08:51:19 AM »
John has been my firearms instructor since 1988 and while I obviously like his teaching methods, I find it a little ironic that the same guy that's publishing this article (or as he likes to call them, quip) is physically less prepared to save his life than most of those guns discussed in the article. Extra weight and poor conditioning simply don't help in any kind of life or death fight. You need more than just a running gun and technique to see you survive to fight another day.

Offline Mortblanc

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
  • Karma: 18
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2015, 09:54:25 AM »
John has been my firearms instructor since 1988 and while I obviously like his teaching methods, I find it a little ironic that the same guy that's publishing this article (or as he likes to call them, quip) is physically less prepared to save his life than most of those guns discussed in the article. Extra weight and poor conditioning simply don't help in any kind of life or death fight. You need more than just a running gun and technique to see you survive to fight another day.

That is completely dependent on the survival situation which is presented. 

Not every situation has or will be dependent on a combat scenario or require the ability to hump a 70 pound pack and then immediately engage in a firefight.

If that were the case then ownership of a firearm by the handicapped, small stature women and the elderly would be a wasted effort because they do not match up to your "image of a survivor".

endurance

  • Guest
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2015, 10:00:36 AM »
So other than abduction, where being 450 pounds might be to your advantage, where do you see less fitness as a benefit? 

While I'm far from the special forces warrior who can run 50 miles with a 70 pound pack in 10 hours, it just seems that better fitness, the best training we can afford and have the time for, and the best mental preparedness we can have, the better our individual chances for survival.

Offline David in MN

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2780
  • Karma: 213
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2015, 11:56:04 AM »
"Use a gun that works." Pretty run of the mill advice. While I respect the writer and I cede the point that dusting off carry gear is a great idea I'm suspicious of the vast numbers of guns that failed to work. I've seen torture tests where pistols continue to work after being dropped in sand, mud, water, etc. so the idea that many of us are running around without a functioning pistol doesn't pass my smell test.

In practice, I have to agree with Endurance. If every CCW holder took a daily walk and a CPR class it'd probably do more for extending life than carrying (not that I'm opposed to carrying; I do).

Offline Mortblanc

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
  • Karma: 18
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2015, 08:16:28 PM »
So other than abduction, where being 450 pounds might be to your advantage, where do you see less fitness as a benefit? 

While I'm far from the special forces warrior who can run 50 miles with a 70 pound pack in 10 hours, it just seems that better fitness, the best training we can afford and have the time for, and the best mental preparedness we can have, the better our individual chances for survival.

But you guys are "training" for full scale urban warfare with running gun fights, apparently against organized combat troops.  That is far from the 2.5 round 3 second carjacking scenario which is much more likely in today's world.

How much "training" do you need to know that when the bad guy yanks your car door open you shoot him, or if he is in your kitchen at 3am you drop him like a bucket of rocks?

You guys are really overboard with this "training" thing.  Do you get regular driving instruction also?  Why Not? You spend more time in your car than in combat.  Are you enrolled in medical school?  You know you are going to eventually get sick!  Same rationale.

Fitness is a relative term and always has been.  A "fit" 70 year old with two knee replacements and a pacemaker operating his heart can pop a cap in your butt as well as a "fit" 30 year old, that is why we carry the guns.  What minimum level of fitness do you require to justify remaining alive?  Does one need to pass the combat fitness course to deserve their next breath?

I am 65 and have had two heart attacks and three back surgeries, one of my neighbors is 70 and suffers from COPD, another neighbor is fighting cancer.  We have all been alive a long time, some of us have fought wars, we are still here and we aren't giving up because we got old or sick.   We are not going to pass you PT test and we don't care!

And I am not paying my hard earned money to some wannabe who claims to be a "trainer", whatever that is, who was not born until I came home from my third war. 

Farman is more concerned about the folks showing up with malfunctioning firearms than anything else and that should be a concern.  All these people showing up for their "tactical training" and it is obvious they have never had the weapon on a range for a simple test firing.  I have seen the same thing many times at qualification classes for CCW.  People buy the latest zip-bang auto-pistol, stick it in their pocket and don't know if it will shoot or not. 

So what is his training advice?  Go out and shoot your gun and see if it works!

 


Offline Carl

  • Mr HamTastic!
  • Forum Veteran
  • *********
  • Posts: 13105
  • Karma: 716
  • COW?...No ,I haven't seen your cow.
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2015, 04:18:49 AM »
My revolver has never had a misfeed.  :)

Offline bdhutier

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1120
  • Karma: 49
  • Defensor libertas
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2015, 04:14:27 PM »
But you guys are "training" for full scale urban warfare with running gun fights, apparently against organized combat troops.  That is far from the 2.5 round 3 second carjacking scenario which is much more likely in today's world.

How much "training" do you need to know that when the bad guy yanks your car door open you shoot him, or if he is in your kitchen at 3am you drop him like a bucket of rocks?

You guys are really overboard with this "training" thing.  Do you get regular driving instruction also?  Why Not? You spend more time in your car than in combat.  Are you enrolled in medical school?  You know you are going to eventually get sick!  Same rationale.

Fitness is a relative term and always has been.  A "fit" 70 year old with two knee replacements and a pacemaker operating his heart can pop a cap in your butt as well as a "fit" 30 year old, that is why we carry the guns.  What minimum level of fitness do you require to justify remaining alive?  Does one need to pass the combat fitness course to deserve their next breath?

I am 65 and have had two heart attacks and three back surgeries, one of my neighbors is 70 and suffers from COPD, another neighbor is fighting cancer.  We have all been alive a long time, some of us have fought wars, we are still here and we aren't giving up because we got old or sick.   We are not going to pass you PT test and we don't care!

And I am not paying my hard earned money to some wannabe who claims to be a "trainer", whatever that is, who was not born until I came home from my third war. 

Farman is more concerned about the folks showing up with malfunctioning firearms than anything else and that should be a concern.  All these people showing up for their "tactical training" and it is obvious they have never had the weapon on a range for a simple test firing.  I have seen the same thing many times at qualification classes for CCW.  People buy the latest zip-bang auto-pistol, stick it in their pocket and don't know if it will shoot or not. 

So what is his training advice?  Go out and shoot your gun and see if it works!

Wow, Mortblanc...

The vast majority of us who seek out and participate in training opportunities are not training for urban warfare.  We train for real-world situations, based on documented incidents and science. 

You asked, "How much 'training' do you need to know that when the bad guy yanks your car door open you shoot him..."  OK, how much have you practiced drawing your pistol - in your normal carry configuration - from a seated position with a seat belt on?  I'd guess never... Not so easy, and if you try to pull that off without training/practice, "A "fit" 70 year old with two knee replacements and a pacemaker operating his heart [who] can pop a cap in your butt as well as a "fit" 30 year old" has a pretty good chance of dying in the street because he doesn't know what he's doing, has never tried, and never learned from it.

No one's talking about running around ripped like a SEAL the rest of your life, but I do think it's a no-brainer to at least TRY not to be the 450lb guy trying to take cover in a restaurant who takes three minutes to get up off the floor, or egress the store with a quickness but barely fits through the isles.  Maybe during your deadly force encounter you are going to blast the bad guy to smithereens, and just stand there with a cigar like Clint Eastwood.  You're not going to try to run for cover in case the bad guy's only on the ground and not actually incapacitated.  After all, we all know pistol rounds are one-shot killers (like in the movies), and there's absolutely no need to continue assessing the bad guy, and especially no need to do it from a position of relative safety!!

Or maybe Endurance never asked you or anyone to pass any PT tests, he simply stated the fitter the better...

Perhaps I just don't have enough credibility for you.  After all, I'm only around 40, and we didn't have three wars to fight during my 20 years in the military.  Oh, and I'm sure my medium sized city police department (where I'm a firearms instructor) doesn't see enough hard action to satisfy your requirements.  So yeah, you have me dead to rights on your little scoreboard.  But I don't care... I'll continue to train, practice, try to come up with unique scenarios, and stay as healthy as I can. 

Some day, God forbid, a life may depend on it.

Offline Mortblanc

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
  • Karma: 18
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2015, 09:23:02 PM »
OK you say the majority are training for a "real world situation",

Not prepping for urban combat,

Then you throw a 20 year military career and being a cop, specifically a firearms instructor, into the mix.

Training for urban combat is your whole life, and you do not even see it.





 

endurance

  • Guest
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2015, 09:30:26 PM »
Mort, have you ever taken one of John's classes?  There's more time spent on running a trigger and safety than anything tactical.

Offline jerseyboy

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Karma: 28
  • Garden State Prepper
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2015, 10:59:13 PM »
Quote
You asked, "How much 'training' do you need to know that when the bad guy yanks your car door open you shoot him..."  OK, how much have you practiced drawing your pistol - in your normal carry configuration - from a seated position with a seat belt on?  I'd guess never... Not so easy, and if you try to pull that off without training/practice,

I still remember the first time I did the seatbelt drill, we ran through it dry and I did fine. When we went live I completely forgot to take the seatbelt off, tried to exit the car and nearly closehung myself.

Also you have to remember to put your hand under the seatbelt before you unbuckle it out you will get tangled up in it as it retracts.

Also, if you plan to draw without taking the seatbelt off, did you bother to pull your cover garment out of the seatbelt when you buckled it?  If not, you are going to have great difficultly drawing.

Training for situations you think you will find yourself in is not time wasted.

Jerseyboy


Offline bdhutier

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1120
  • Karma: 49
  • Defensor libertas
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2015, 07:28:02 AM »
OK you say the majority are training for a "real world situation",

Not prepping for urban combat,

Then you throw a 20 year military career and being a cop, specifically a firearms instructor, into the mix.

Training for urban combat is your whole life, and you do not even see it.

Oh, contraire my good Sir... You stated, "urban warfare," not urban combat.  If I had to apply a term to it, I would say something more along the lines of: High-intensity close quarters engagement.  But urban combat will work too, since it is combat after all. 

I absolutely do see I've trained for and thought out "urban combat" my whole life. 

1. I see it every time I'm stopped at a red light in a marked unit, looking at the cars I'm surrounded by, trying to figure out who's going to shoot me, and what (if anything) I can do about it. 

2. I see it while I'm walking through a supermarket picking up my salad (no more burgers) for lunch, reading tattoos, the sideways glances, and the inevitable comedian who throws his hands up a says, "I didn't do it!"  Then I stand in line watching for the guy I've seen a couple times in the store who painfully avoided eye contact, but happens to wind up behind me while I high-five and talk - like everything's just great - to the four year old boy who's excited to get to speak with a real live policeman.

3. I see it at 0230 pulling up to the residential alarm which has no business going off at that time of night.  I really see it when I find the broken bathroom window out back.  Then I wonder... they know the alarm went off, so they're likely not in the house.  But I was too close for them to get far, so where did they go?  Watch the house and watch my back at the same time.  My cover unit's 10mins out...

That's what I train for, Sir.  Not Fallujah 3.0...

Offline The Professor

  • Tactical Skittle Assassin
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2754
  • Karma: 385
  • All we have to do is create another universe
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2015, 08:17:49 PM »
Hmmm,

I must have missed something in that article.  As I understood it, someone at a shooting match emailed/contacted Farnam and basically said that only 30% of those who participated in a particular course of fire had guns that operated as they were expected to.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with SEALS, Special Forces, 70-lb packs and Urban Warfare, but I find the basis for the article to be, at best, questionable.

Here's why:

First, I'd love to know where the match was held and what type of match it was supposed to be.  Presumably, from information gathered in the article, it may have been an IPSC/USPSA match due to the references to "Match" and "Race Guns."

I'd be very interested to see a listing of the guns used in the alternate course of fire.  For 70% of the shooters' concealed/daily carry guns to malfunction is something I find curious, at best. . .suspicious at least.  What kind of crap guns were these people carrying for self-defense?  Optionally, how bad had their maintenance of their primary defensive weapons become?

Now, these are supposed to be competitive shooters who use a weapon, presumably, on a somewhat frequent basis, even if it is only for competition.  They would know that lack of cleaning/maintenance leads to poor performance of their weapons, yet they obviously neglected their carry guns?

Then, we are led to believe that these same practitioners all told a ". . .self-serving lie. . ." in that they ". . .piously swore. . ."  that they cleaned their guns regularly.

Now, if these were just your average CCW  holders who didn't practice or compete, I might buy the  premise.  But I'm on the borderline of calling "Shenanigans" on this article.

Then, the comments made by Farnam are also something I find intriguing. . .inasmuch as I personally witnessed Farnam's participation in several matches, including at least three National Tactical Invitationals, when they were held, in Pennsylvania.

Calling competitors "nimrods" and "pretenders" is something I find a bit self-serving, even for someone who identifies himself as a "tactical instructor" and who will presumably turn everyday "gun people" into "operators" if you cross his palm with enough silver.

So, ultimately. . .what's my problem?

Apparently Farnam has taken the message from ". . .a friend and colleague. . ." at total face value without inquiring as to the nature of the weapons in the CoF.   He then immediately uses this unconfirmed anecdote to insult not only the shooters, but the competition in which they participate, even going so far as to imply they are not "real" gun people because they allegedly don't ". . .ever assiduously train with any kind of serious, carry gun."

I find it amazing that he could draw such conclusions without further research and investigation.

Oh, wait. . .he IS selling something, after all.

Now before those of you who have draughted deeply of the Farnam-flavor Kool-Aid get your unmentionables in a twist, I have no particular animus towards John Farnam.  I have met him several times at a particular gunstore in Loveland, Colorado as well as have attended his presentations at the aforementioned National Tactical Invitationals.  Having met the man and having the background that I do, I find some of his assertions in this particular article to be intriguing. . .at best.

The Professor
 

endurance

  • Guest
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2015, 09:33:19 PM »
No panty twist here. He has some good things to teach, but I'm not a fan of his rants or his politics. In class I expect him to call me out if my gear isn't in order, and he has, when I brought an aging P7M13 that wasn't performing up to snuff, but you're absolutely right, he didn't fact check and used a bunch of strangers to scold publicly, which is never the best way to make a point.

My only point was he certainly has a few things he could work on to be a more ready person and that doesn't necessarily mean his gun is out of order. He doesn't need to be a navy seal, but I don't think his current conditioning would help him in a serious situation either.

Offline RitaRose1945

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 5526
  • Karma: 403
  • Asking the uncomfortable questions since 1964
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2015, 09:56:44 PM »
As far as fitness goes - if nothing else, it gives you more options when you are in any given situation.  And that's always good.


It doesn't mean that it will get you out alive, but neither does any weapon or prep.


I have to admit, the article seemed a bit "off."  If he said that many firearms were dirty, I could maybe see it.  But that many not functioning?  Doesn't sound right.


Offline FreeLancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 6712
  • Karma: 820
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2015, 11:57:08 PM »
He doesn't need to be a navy seal, but I don't think his current conditioning would help him in a serious situation either.

His adiposity might nudge the terminal ballistics in his favor.  But, then again, wading through all that blubber in the OR isn't good for anyone.

endurance

  • Guest
Re: John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2015, 06:15:10 AM »
When I took his class in 1988, he wasn't exactly thin then, but he had some younger guys teaching movement stuff, like dropping to one knee to aid with a pivot. Now he doesn't teach that stuff and I'm left to wonder if it's because he can't do it himself or because the research has shown there's a reason not to do it. Therein lies one of my reasons for it being an issue. Is it his physical limitations impacting his instruction or is there science to back up staying on one's feet. Before he emphasized the importance of dropping out of the bad guys field of vision to buy time if you were engaging more than one target (this wasn't civilian training, like I've taken more recently).  It could also be just that, it's civilian-oriented vs my previous tactical training.