Curing the Tactical Turtle

[esrice]

so in theory the [ahem] "real world" should cause me to 1) turtle even more out of self-preservation instinct or 2) revert more to my upright training? I'm confused. (Or can I have cake and eat it, too?)

Think about shooting a match where there were tennis ball launchers next to the targets, pointed at you. Ask yourself if your technique would look any different while trying to dodge those incoming tennis balls. Obviously the goal with training is to make you better and to shoot true regardless of incoming fire, but IME people tend to have a reaction to such things and try to get themselves as low as possible.

 

[Rob377]

I played tennis in high school Every time the thing launched, I had a hellacious "startle response" and smacked myself in the face with the racket. True story.

 

[esrice]

I played tennis in high school Every time the thing launched, I had a hellacious "startle response" and smacked myself in the face with the racket. True story.

I want video.

 

[Rob377]

I want video.

Fortunately, there is no video evidence.

That was in the days before video cameras were in every electronic device made. They still had this tape stuff in them, and were big and expensive.

 

[David Rose]

On the non-competition side, is there somewhere other than motivation (speed on timer vs fear for life) where I'm off?

-rvb

I'm trying to seperate them into different conversations with the hope that those interested in competition and those interested in defense could both benefit from the discussion.

 

[45calibre]

Here's a recent blog by Mr. Giddings (Ahab) wherein he puts down one shooting posture in favor of another.

I disagree with Mr. Giddings.

Curing the Tactical Turtle | Gun Nuts

Actually I both agree and disagree. Under the umbrella of recreational or competitive shooting I think he makes some excellent points. The "deep isosceles" or "tactical turtle" as he calls it probably isn't the best posture for shooting as fast as possible and engaging multiple known targets. He's correct that the top competitive shooters utilize a more upright posture.

Where he goes wrong is in assuming that the "tactical turtle" posture is solely a shooting posture. It's not, it's a fighting posture. And because there is more going on in a fight than simply shooting, it fits quite well in that context where things like muscle fatigue are less important.

As mentioned in the article, the body's natural "startle response" is often manifested as the hands coming up and the head going down. The knees will also bend and your weight will shift in preparation for explosive movement. The "tactical turtle" recognizes this and seeks to work with the body instead of against it.

But what about race car drivers and others who train to work through the body's natural reactions? If they can do it, shooters can too, right? Sure they can, if they're actually training regularly in context under stress with a real startle stimulus. But how many folks are actually training this way? Force on force is a great way to learn how being startled will affect you, and yet amazingly I see lots of the "tactical turtle" when the shots start flying in people's direction during scenarios. In some cases its actually a really ugly contorted version of "tactical turtle".

Mr. Giddings certainly isn't "training to better his survival reflex" in competitions. What's startling about a shot timer?

So I personally see his entire premise as an apples-to-oranges comparison. One posture is better for gaming and one is better for fighting. Using a competition posture would leave you exposed in a fight (if you were even able to maintain it), and using "tactical turtle" in a competition would net you lower scores.

Know the context you're training for and utilize the tactics and techniques that best fit that context.

Side note: In the article's comments Mr. Giddings states that his article is about shooting, and not fighting. In that context, as stated above, I agree with him. I'm just not sure why he chose to include the last 2 paragraphs if he wasn't also advocating the upright posture for defensive use.

I dont understand what you mean. Dont most defensive shootings happen within arms reach or very close by? If you have your arms straight out and your weight on the balls of your feet wouldnt it be very easy to get knocked off balance if charged or have you arms swiped with them out there like that? Were is the fighting in that stance? How would that be better than a weaver stance?

 

[cedartop]

I dont understand what you mean. Dont most defensive shootings happen within arms reach or very close by? .?

Close by yes, arms length, not always. As a matter of fact, if you are not LE, maybe not even the majority of the time.



Rangemaster - Current Newsletter

 

[theblackknight]

Think about shooting a match where there were tennis ball launchers next to the targets, pointed at you. Ask yourself if your technique would look any different while trying to dodge those incoming tennis balls. Obviously the goal with training is to make you better and to shoot true regardless of incoming fire, but IME people tend to have a reaction to such things and try to get themselves as low as possible.

I've always wanted something like this.

But what is the point of training if you are just re-enforcing what people do anyways?

You can squat to get lower and still have a upright position. Your goal is to shut down the tennis balls as fast as possible. Why not pick the stance that lets you do that in the most rapid way possible, and then train that stance until its what you default to?

 

[Coach]

What stance did Jim Crillo use? He was undefeated in gun fights.

 

[cedartop]

What stance did Jim Crillo use? He was undefeated in gun fights.

That is correct Coach, but it must be taken into account that he and his team were basically setting up ambushes. This is proactive versus reactive.

 

[Coach]

That is correct Coach, but it must be taken into account that he and his team were basically setting up ambushes. This is proactive versus reactive.

Ok. I get that. I think we should not be so quick to discount.
He chose the place. What stance did he choose?

He and the boys were not shooting anyone who walked in. They just shot guys who walked in with a gun in the hand demanding money. Still reactive, just trolling.

 

[riverman67]

I have no idea what the realationship between my head and shoulders is while I'm shooting.
It's something that I don't think about and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to start now.The less I have to think about the better MY shooting results are. When practicing I do try to keep tension out of my shoulders,nothing good comes from tension in my limited experience.
If I'm startled and I duck my head a little lower,so be it I'm not going to try and train a startle response.

 

[netsecurity]

If you had no weapon, and were taking incoming fire, or had fear of such, wouldnt you keep your head down and crouch similar to the turtle? The only difference with a weapon is that your hands would be extended forward. In this regard it seems very natural.

I cannot hold that stance for more than about 30 seconds though in practice, so I stand upright. But if I ever were in an armed robbery or similar, I plan on keeping my head down, and making myself shorter. If nothing else perhaps I can move up and down the isles without being seen.

 

[Aaron1776]

The idea that you should develop the things people do anyway is false to anyone with more then minimal interest in training and being defense minded ie the easy target. If you are going to invest minimal to no time learning to shoot in a fight along with a shallow understanding of other ways to fight, then doing all the CFS style stuff makes a lot of sense.

But dont get all righteously indignant when those who are willing to invest more are striving up to a standard, vs. down to what most untrained people do anyways, so they can thrive and dominate a fight rather then just merely survive it. There is plenty of things that people do in sim training that they cant help, the idea that you should renforce those detrimental things is an idea that assumes you are training those who are terribly unprepared for what they are facing. Training is the act of best becoming prepared, not being better at one's level of incompetence. This whole thinking is always very beta sounding. "you cant use the slide release"" you cant do that in a fight, this is cermbat!''"youll never use the sights" vs. I can do this, so I'm going to train this, and will use it.


Unless you have some results from a state match that shows you have anything more then a non-understanding of gaming and what it does and dosent do, you should really shut up.

Though TBK is being his usual, brash self, I have to agree with him up to a point. I hear all of the time from people who have never been in a fight that "oh you'll fail to get your safety off", "you'll never see your sights", "you won't be able to help this" Blah Blah Blah Bullcrap.

However, we need to recognize from a physiological standpoint that there ARE a few things we cannot help. They are simply the effects of adrenaline. For example, the blood flow increase, the way the muscles in your eyes contract or relax and what you can focus on, etc. Which leads me into the quote below.

... It seems the more agressive/closer/faster the shooting, the closer I am to a turtle (must have learned that while living out east among all those terrapins); conversely, the more precise the shooting, the more I'm upright. It's not a head thing, it's an over-all agressiveness thing... put up a couple close targets I can shoot while at a half-sprint, and my whole "stance" will be more forward and agressive with a lowering of center of gravity; give me a couple 25yd headshots with closer no-shoots, the more upright and "ideal" my whole "stance" will be.


As long as the gun is between my eyes and the target, does it matter?

My own experience in both armed and unarmed confrontations has been mixed. If I saw it coming, or they were far away, it was far, far easier for me to use proper technique. The more I was truly startled, the more the BAR (body alarm response/reaction) took over.

A lot of it has to do with 3 things. 1- so called "muscle memory". If you've got an action ingrained into muscle memory you'll be able to reproduce it under stress, but not necessarily perfectly. 2- Stress inoculation. The more used to extreme stress you are, the less the BAR will affect you negatively. and 3rd, how much warning you had the fight was coming. Guys who know it's coming often report remembering seeing their sights, using proper technique, etc. Guys who are truly startled often don't remember seeing their sights, being hunched over, etc.

What does this mean for stance? It means you're going to take whatever stance you've trained, and the more inoculated to stress you are/ the more you see it coming, the less your BAR is going to override you.
That being said, it's far easier to use "grips" and "stances" and actions that work WITH your BAR rather than against it, so long as you don't fall into the trap where you think "oh I'll never to be able to do X because of adrenaline".

But even more to the point, as PVB pointed out, especially at close, defensive ranges, if your gun is between your eyes and on target, you're probably doing better than the idiot you're fighting.

Unless you're fighting a mall ninja. Then you'll die by his super tactical awesome swiss army gadget gun.

 

[HICKMAN]

But even more to the point, as PVB pointed out, especially at close, defensive ranges, if your gun is between your eyes and on target, you're probably doing better than the idiot you're fighting.

Amen

 

[AD Marc]

All i have to say about the distinction between fighting technique and shooting technique is that I've never seen an ECQC evolution where this particular bit of minutia made a difference. Shooting from retention, various degrees of extension, in fight weapon access and grappling skill on the other hand has. The contention he makes in the article isn't necessarily wrong, but If you turtle up a bit but can shoot fist sized groups quickly and at will, whatever. When it comes to fighting there are more important areas of training to which you should dedicate your limited time.

 

[theblackknight]

Though TBK is being his usual, brash self, I have to agree with him up to a point.

Hey sexy, wanna go somehere dark and CQB togather?

 

[David Rose]

He makes 4 points in the article.
Vision
Transitions
Lockout
Body's natural reactions

And he goes 4 for 4.

If you belive your eyes work the same way during life or death stress as they do during an IPSC match....
If you belive that swinging the gun around directed by those eyes that are un effected by the stress...
If you belive that your going to extend your arms aggressively, and stop your arms at some precise point before full extension...
If you think you can or should out train, un train, re train your Limbic system...

You might be setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Rob377]

Someone sure went 4 for 4, but it wasn't Caleb.

 

[David Rose]

Rob377 has retrained the cones in his eyes to distribute themselves equally so that an increase in bold flow during critical incident stress has no effect on his vision. I guess we all have something to strive for now.