Follow through – Practical Application
#Fridayfundamentals
An excellent article was recently published on the Shooting Illustrated website about follow‑through. https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/head-down-follow-through/?utm_source=newsletter It’s well written and worth reading.
Two practical demonstrations appear in LAPD Incident NRF 032-23 https://youtu.be/zydZUuqQahI?si=-6a3KLf00_rvn7x2 The amount of video in the LAPD’s YouTube Critical Incident Community Briefing allows us to observe the marksmanship aspects in depth.
Two officers were actually involved in the shooting. The officers were armed with two different weapon systems. The first to engage had a 40mm Less-Lethal (Blue Dildo) Launcher. The second officer used his Glock service pistol.
It’s unclear if the first 40mm foam round hit the perpetrator but it is clear that the second round fired went low and hit the hostage the assailant was holding down.
One possibility for the low hit is lack of follow through. A 40mm round has a muzzle velocity of 235-260 feet per second, far lower than a firearm. The Launcher has a barrel length of 14 inches. And the munition is visible in flight. This combination makes the Launcher more susceptible than a firearm to being pulled low off the target if the shooter doesn’t use good follow through.”
Corresponding with the author of the Follow-through article, he opined:
“the officer with the 40mm [may have] made the critical error of lifting his head to look for the impact/result before he even fired.”
This is a better elaboration of the “munition visible in flight” aspect than I had originally made in my Patreon posts about the incident. The author also felt the officer may have failed to account for the difference of point of impact from using the Red Dot Sight at close range. If the first shot also went low that would likely be true. If the first shot hit and the second shot missed it wouldn’t necessarily be true. Unfortunately that’s hard to tell from the video available.
The single shot aspect of the Launcher could also have been a factor. Desire to get a single shot weapon reloaded does not enhance our execution of follow-through.
The second officer demonstrated good follow-through while shooting his Glock. When his first shot missed, he was able to assess and fire a second shot without hesitation because he was still on target.
Whether shooting a long gun or a pistol, follow-through is extremely important. Pistol shooters often immediately drop their guns below the line of sight to see where the bullet impacted. This is a bad habit to be scrupulously avoided.
If you would like to read more extensive analysis of this and other incidents, or if you would like to become a real shooter with aim, please follow my Patreon page. https://www.patreon.com/TacticalProfessor
Recognition Primed Decision-making (part IV)
RPD in the context of Personal Protection has two components. The first is Recognizing what is happening. The second is making a Decision about what to do about it. That Decision is the result of overlaying our ‘Options’ on ‘People’ and ‘Situations’ to achieve an appropriate response. Our response represents the Confront and Resist components of the Avoid, Escape, Confront, Resist model. The best decisions are made in advance and then implemented in the moment of need.
Part I of the series Recognition Primed Decision-making (part I) discussed the types of people we might encounter.
- Benign person
- Angry person
- Predator or angry person with personal weapons (fists, shod feet, etc.)
- Angry person or predator with a contact weapon
- Predator or angry person with a projectile weapon(s)
Examples of situations were also discussed.
- Area of limited visibility such as a parking deck
- Walking alone in unfamiliar territory
- Being in the presence of a person who makes us uncomfortable
- Having an unknown person approach us
- Being home in a state of Unawareness or Unfocused on personal protection
- Etc.
Part II Recognition Primed Decision-making (part II) listed our Reactions or Options to an attempted predation.
- Freeze
- Submit (at least temporarily)
- Negotiate
- Posture
- Flight
- Fight
- Unarmed
- Non-Lethal
- Lethal
Our Confront and Resist Options are based on our personal situation and value choices. These can change over time or rapidly, even second to second. A person may not be initially comfortable with carrying potentially lethal tools but be perfectly comfortable with unarmed combat or non-lethal tools. As time goes on, they may become more comfortable with a wider range of Options or they may not.
Changes in available tools varies with the situation. For instance, a person may not choose to carry a firearm in their place of employment but instead to lock it in their vehicle while working. During the walk from the business place to the vehicle, they might only be equipped with pepper spray and a flashlight. Immediately upon entering and locking the vehicle, the person may don a handgun and impact tool. During the walk, the person may choose a previously developed response tactic that only involves using the tools on their person. While this may not be the optimal solution, it is the one available at the time. Upon upgrading their Defense Condition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON with a handgun, the chosen tactic may be different.
It’s useful to view the context of Boyd’s Process as an iterative and interactive model between two parties rather than the single party static model usually described. In a predation, the predator will make the first move, the intended victim will respond with a Reaction or Option, and then the predator will choose or react from his/her range of Options.
A predator also has a group of Options/Reactions when the intended victim begins to Confront or Resist rather than being caught up in the Victim Mix. Part V will explore what these are and how they affect our Decisions.
Tactical Professor books (all PDF)
- Thinking Clearly about Self-defense and Personal Protection https://www.payloadz.com/go?id=3377208
- Real Shootouts of the LAPD https://realshootoutsofthelapd.com/
- Serious Mistakes Gunowners Make http://seriousgunownermistakes.com
- Indoor Range Practice Sessions http://indoorrangepracticesessions.com
- Concealed Carry Skills and Drills http://concealedcarryskillsanddrills.com
- Advanced Pistol Practice http://bit.ly/advancedpistolpractice
- Shooting Your Black Rifle http://shootingyourblackrifle.com
- Package deal of Thinking Clearly about Self-defense and Personal Protection, Serious Mistakes, Indoor Sessions, Concealed Carry, and Shooting Your Black Rifle (50% off) https://store.payloadz.com/details/2644448-ebooks-sports-shooting-drills-package.html
Recognition Primed Decision-making (part II)
Dr. Klein explains gives a brief explanation of his model in this interview about RPD.
Examining our Options
The NRA Guide to Personal Protection Outside the Home (PPOTH) lists these “Psychological Reactions To A Threat” in Chapter 6.
- Freeze
- Submit
- Posture
- Flight
- Fight
We could further subdivide ‘Fight’ into:
- Unarmed
- Non-Lethal
- Lethal
To the ‘Submit’ option, we could include the caveat, ‘at least temporarily.’ Being taken to a 2nd crime scene is generally not a good idea but it might be unavoidable. In one of his student’s incidents recounted by Tom Givens, two stickup men got the drop on the victim in a parking lot and had guns to his head. However, they failed to realize he was carrying a concealed pistol. The stickup men kidnapped him and eventually took him to the 2nd crime scene, his home. There, he waited for his turn in the OODA sequence and killed both the predators.
‘Posture’ could simply mean saying NO! in an unambiguous way.
Another option we should consider is ‘Negotiate,’ a tactic included by The Most Dangerous Man in The World as part of his PARRR system. Even a Sixth Army boxing champion, obviously no slouch with his fists, found this tactic useful in an encounter with Razor Willy, a local prostitute in the Fort Campbell area. She became enraged and threatened him with her EDC, a straight razor, but he managed to talk his way out of the encounter with neither party becoming a casualty.
It’s apparent that our Options extend beyond the simplistic “Fight or Flight” and ‘Gun or None’ possibilities that we usually hear about. Thinking about what our Options are ahead of time gives us the freedom to program an appropriate level of force, or none, when we become concerned for our safety or that of our loved ones.
Part III will go into overlaying our ‘Options’ on ‘People’ and ‘Situations’ to develop a personal Avoid, Escape, Confront, Resist model.
Tactical Professor books (all PDF)
- Thinking Clearly about Self-defense and Personal Protection https://www.payloadz.com/go?id=3377208
- Real Shootouts of the LAPD https://realshootoutsofthelapd.com/
- Serious Mistakes Gunowners Make http://seriousgunownermistakes.com
- Indoor Range Practice Sessions http://indoorrangepracticesessions.com
- Concealed Carry Skills and Drills http://concealedcarryskillsanddrills.com
- Advanced Pistol Practice http://bit.ly/advancedpistolpractice
- Shooting Your Black Rifle http://shootingyourblackrifle.com
- Package deal of Thinking Clearly about Self-defense and Personal Protection, Serious Mistakes, Indoor Sessions, Concealed Carry, and Shooting Your Black Rifle (50% off) https://store.payloadz.com/details/2644448-ebooks-sports-shooting-drills-package.html
Why we test our equipment
As part of my Purse Carry Project (PCP), I picked up a small purse a neighbor was giving away.
The purse had a canister of OC in it.
When I tried the canister at the range, this is what happened.
There are numerous other problems that were associated with the setup but being non-functional was the primary one. My colleague Brian Hill of The Complete Combatant http://www.thecompletecombatant.com/ remarked:
Think of what would have happened if that can was the only method for Personal Protection the woman had and it failed when she needed it.
That’s the same reason we test our guns. The majority of guns purchased for Personal Protection in the past few months will never be fired at all. The purchaser really has no idea what will happen. Just shooting one or two exercises from Indoor Range Practice Sessions http://indoorrangepracticesessions.com would go a long way.
Clarification about the .25 ACP
An article about the .25 ACP pistol cartridge came to my attention today. It says I endorse the use of that caliber for Personal Protection. This is not true. Through personal experimentation, not on humans, I have determined it simply does not have enough penetration to be a viable cartridge for the purpose.
The only incident in my database in which an Armed Citizen was seriously injured after shooting a criminal with a ‘mousegun’ occurred with a .25. The first round bounced off the attacker’s teeth at point blank range.
I would much rather have a .22LR for Personal Protection than any .25 ACP. At least it will penetrate a piece of wood enough to stick in. That has not been my experience the .25 ACP.
S&W 43C .22LR revolver
Jacks & Saps and Timing – Part II
Part I of this review gave an overall view of the Jacks and Saps class. Some of the deeper lessons from the class are worthy of further discussion.
Multidisciplinary training (unarmed combat, impact tools, and firearms) doesn’t just mean learning to use different tools and techniques, it also means understanding the overlap of the different disciplines’ concepts. By understanding the overlap, we can reinforce the concepts and lessons of one discipline and apply it to others. Key Concepts in the Jacks and Saps class were Timing, Timing Errors, and Timing Windows. These have parallels in firearms training and practice, as well.
Jacks & Saps and Timing – Part I
Jacks & Saps is a class taught by Larry Lindenman of Point Driven Training. It was hosted in the Atlanta area on August 18 and 19, as two separate one day classes, by The Complete Combatant.
The class objective was described as a:
Small Impact Weapons Skills seminar is designed for people looking for a tool based less than lethal response to criminal attack.
There were ten clients, eight male and two female, on Sunday. They were the overflow from a Sold Out class of 20 clients on Saturday. Since Impact Tools are not regulated in Georgia, it was a very popular class. Note that Impact Tools are not legal to carry in all States even when Licensed to carry a pistol. This makes little sense but logic rarely applies to the law. Readers are advised to be familiar with the laws of their own State and any State they may travel to.
For those unfamiliar, Jacks and Saps are small impact tools [weapons] that are pocket sized. Although ubiquitous in police work at one time, they are now seldom used. Bulkier and less effective collapsible batons have become the standard impact weapons for Law Enforcement now.
Threat management interview on Ballistic Radio
John Johnston of Ballistic Radio and I spoke on the air last weekend about Threat Management.
Threat Management is a topic that is woefully under-represented in most people’s skill set. Going to the range occasionally only helps develop the shooting skills. In contrast, how much time do folks spend on the skills that lead to ‘non-shooting?’ A short list would include, but is not limited to:
Verbalization,
STOP! Don’t come any closer!
Making the shoot/no shoot decision,
And adversary identification
Learning and practicing those skills can help us keep a situation under control before shooting and hopefully prevent a shooting at all.
Here’s the permalink to the interview. http://content.blubrry.com/ballisticradio/140824_BALLISTICS.mp3
Using pepper spray effectively
The second class I attended at Paul-E-Palooza 2 was OC and “less-lethal” for CCW folks given by Lt. Chuck Haggard of the Topeka Police Department. There was a little humor about the class title because to many attendees, ‘OC’ means Open Carry rather than Oleoresin Capsicum. As a result Chuck had to explain he was talking about pepper spray.
Chuck has extensive training and experience with pepper spray. He is a National instructor for the National Law Enforcement Training Center and an Adjunct instructor for Strategos International. He has also been featured as a guest on Ballistic Radio. Chuck stated that he has been sprayed with OC about 60 times, in the training context, and has sprayed somewhere around 1000 people. Most of his sprayees are Police Cadets since his department has a mandatory exposure to OC policy for its officers.
I wanted to take the class because I am a firm believer in carrying what I call ‘Intermediate Force Options.’ Pepper spray is one of those weapons that give us a response to predatory behavior not requiring deadly force. As I state in all my classes “Lacking an intermediate force option while you are armed with a firearm implies that all you are willing to do to protect yourself is kill someone.” That’s not a position most reasonable people would be comfortable in taking, given a little bit of thought.
The class began with a lecture including a review of OC history, products, training and best practices. It then moved on to aspects people need to know for effective use, carry and deployment. Once the lecture was completed, the class moved into the open for practical application with inert trainers. No live weapons, ammo or OC were allowed in the practical exercises. Dummy guns and inert pepper spray canisters, which sprayed water only, were furnished. Eye protection was also furnished to the students.
Once again, as at the Rangemaster Tactical Conference, I had the distinct honor and pleasure of beginning the demonstrations by spraying Chuck in the face with an inert container. We demonstrated two scenarios. In the first, Chuck began to encroach on my personal space while I attempted verbal dissuasion. When he continued to advance, I gave him a good dose and then quickly moved away while he simulated remembering a previous appointment. In the second scenario, after I sprayed him, he became irate and threatened me with a training knife. At that point, I transitioned to my dummy gun and gave him a good cowboy “Pow, pow, pow” while maneuvering away.
The second scenario was especially interesting for me because I ended up with the pepper spray container in my left hand and my dummy pistol in my right. I shot one handed while maneuvering away from him. I’m not sure how things ended up that way because I started with the can in my right hand. I’m curious whether I transferred the can initially or if I did a ‘Border Shift’ with the can when I started to draw my pistol. I do remember seeing my sights while I was shooting. My dummy pistol has a rear sight notch cut in it because I cannot abide a pistol without sights, even a dummy pistol.
After our demonstrations, the students then split up into two groups. Initially, one group played the predator while the other played the role of the defender. Then the groups switched roles. The students enacted both the non-lethal and lethal scenarios while spraying each other. The class concluded with a critique of spraying and maneuvering.
I don’t practice as much as I would like with my personal OC, a Zombie Spitfire from Sabre. The class gave me a little tuneup, as well as some interesting background on the evolution of pepper spray as an Intermediate Force Option.
tacticalprofessor 
You must be logged in to post a comment.