Armory, Self Defense, And EDC > Firearm Self Defense

John Farnam: Personal readiness with a running gun

<< < (3/4) > >>

jerseyboy:

--- 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,
--- End quote ---

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

bdhutier:

--- Quote from: Mortblanc 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.
--- End quote ---

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...

The Professor:
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:
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.

RitaRose1945:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version