Curing the Tactical Turtle
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 2:38 pm
Tactical Education And Motivation.
I have to agree with this at the moment as I cannot find any supporting statements about increased FOV with tilting the head forward. However, I don't think that you lose any FOV either as long as you don't tilt your head down too much.Eiffel wrote:1. I have never heard of anyone looking down to widen their field of view. I'm not an FBI agent, but from my understanding of vision and physiology, this is not how it works. If anything, you should have the widest and largest useful field of view by keeping your head vertical. This is something I first heard from Frank Proctor, a former SF man, SFAUC instructor, and USPSA Grandmaster. I'll take his creds and the physiology over some "old FBI trick" any day.
Yes, leaning forward does help with creating a smaller target of yourself along with bending the knees and shifting (not so mch leaning) the head forward and down a little bit.Eiffel wrote:2. I simply don't see how hunching your shoulders makes you a much smaller target. If you're smaller it's because you're leaned forward. If you read carefully, the article never says you can't lean forward. The entire focus of the article is about the relationship between your head, shoulders, and neck.
My first issue with this point is that yes someone's jaw will not stop a bullet but when it comes to knives it might help give some initial protection so the shooter can respond to the threat if they are surprised.Eiffel wrote:3. He claims that it's somehow good for the Body Alarm Response to tuck in the head, because it will help protect your vital areas. This is pure stupidity, as I've never met a man who's jaw was hard enough to stop a 7.62x39 round. (The issue of whether we can overcome the body alarm response is separate, in my mind).
The part that I put in bold and underlined is highly relevant to this debate here. While that video is about CQB tactics and this thread is about shooting stance/positions the application is all the same.hightthreatsystems wrote:CQB that starts as immediate entry and changes to limited penetration upon resistance. Probably some of the best precision CQB work caught on video and available to the public. Ask why he thought immediate entry was the way to go until there was an actual threat. Survival behaviors override trained out of context tactical behaviors.
Personally I have not had a problem with scanning and assessing as long as the raising of the shoulders and lowering of the head is not exaggerated. Take a look at this picture.Eiffel wrote:4. He says if the "tactical turtle" stance causes you to not be able to scan and assess, lower your shoulders. This is the entire point of the article in the first place, so...
You shouldn't be in that stance/position for long periods of time anyway. Also there's no rule that says you must stick with one technique at all times as you can adjust and adapt to different tools in the toolbox as necessary.Eiffel wrote:5. He also claims that your shoulders shouldn't feel fatigued while in this stance, which strikes me as a load of shit. Now, I don't actually turtle anymore, but trying to shrug your shoulders up with a plate carrier on is probably not something I'd want to do for more than 5 minutes at a time, let alone an entire range session. Also, pretending that tendonitis doesn't happen when shooting is obliviousness. If you just google it, you'll see that plenty of people have gotten mild cases of tendonitis from pistol shooting, even with a 9mm. Furthermore, his argument about the length of an average shooting is totally irrelevant. You probably want to train before you get in a self-defense shooting, so here we are again, talking about a 2 hour shooting session.
I would agree that pistol shooters techniques wouldn't endanger you in combat but at the same time I don't see it as being the optimal solution either.Eiffel wrote:6. His vague argument about how the battlefield is "dynamic" and "unpredictable" doesn't actually say anything. If the best pistol shooters in the world use a certain technique that doesn't actually endanger you in any meaningful way, I don't see why I wouldn't want to use it on the "battlefield".
Refer to my rebuttal to point 3 and 5.Eiffel wrote:7. Furthermore, his talk about using the body alarm response in conjunction with good shooting technique is a bit of a red herring. The entire point of the article is that lowering your shoulders is a better shooting technique. Then this guy claims that if the technique is preventing you from shooting well, you should adjust it, which is the entire point of the article in the first place.
Probably. Everyone seems to be giving a lot of hate from both sides of the debate and I just don't quite get it. Perhaps it's a lot to do with misunderstandings from both sides?Eiffel wrote:8. Based on watching his stance and demonstrations at the end, I can only conclude that he's completely misunderstood the article. Fair enough, it was shittily written, but I don't think this makes his turtle stance any better.
Hyrum Grissom wrote:The reality is "what works" & the next generation of skills often get buried under the beauracracy of Big Army. Thumb over bore certainly has its place in rapid fire close quarters. But it wasn't that long ago that the military was still teaching teacup/saucer weaver for pistol. LEO SWAT & Spec Ops are where the next generation of skills developed in the world of games via 3 gun & IPSC are being beaten into fighting worthy weapons.
"Fight or flight response". "Freeze, fight or flight response". "Flinch reaction". "Tonic immobility".Eiffel wrote:About body alarm response: I personally have my doubts about this one. I haven't seen this term outside of "tactical" circles and I'm dubious about its validity from a scientific standpoint. While it seems somewhat plausible that we would reflexively respond to a close threat in a certain way, it's extremely hard to distinguish between innate and learned behaviors of this kind. If you can raise a child who never sees a fight or a violent movie, then I guess you've got a shot at figuring it out, but who's going to do that?
Again, going back to what I said before, why try and work against it by training out of it when you can work with it and use it as leverage, to your advantage?ryan wrote:The flinch response affects us all. I laugh at people who say they have "countered" it. It's a natural reaction. You can learn to 'ride' it but not 'counter' it.
Competition shooters like...Jerry Miculek?Eiffel wrote:Competition shooters very literally lead the way in terms of shooting technique. Guess what their shoulder/head position generally looks like?