Suarez Int'l Close Range Gunfighting coming to Dallas area

[baldeagle]

In this instance he is correct that there is somewhere between .1 and .3 or so seconds in response time lost to moving the trigger finger onto the trigger when a decision has been made to fire, and that having the finger already on the trigger is marginally faster. I can't argue that those very brief time intervals couldn't be critical in a given situation, and in a situation where one was in extreme danger and one already had justification to use deadly force, a finger on the trigger tactic might be appropriate when facing an unrestrained highly dangerous suspect. However, I also maintain that the risk of accidentally shooting someone without either justification or a decision to use deadly force is so high with a finger on the trigger before a decision to fire has been made that, in my opinion and the opinion of many other knowledgeable folks, that practice in most circumstances would constitute gross negligence and be indefensible in light of well documented history and research.

First, thank you for your excellent and informative response, which is your norm.

When I read the article, what I got out of it was that if you are in a life threatening situation and if you know the bad buy(s?) is just around the corner and you know that no one else is at risk (e.g. you are point man and there is zero possibilities of innocent civilians being in the line of fire), then and only then it makes sense to have your finger on the trigger. The examples that I've seen of so-called AD (such as the three youtube videos linked by a commenter in a different thread) are not examples of what is wrong with what Suarez is claiming. Those are examples of extremely poor firearm handling. You don't put your finger on the trigger while drawing or holstering. You don't teach a class with a loaded weapon and you most certainly do not put your finger on the trigger of a loaded gun while teaching a class. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as an AD when the finger is on the trigger. To me an AD is when a gun fires without the trigger being pulled.

[Excaliber]

In this instance he is correct that there is somewhere between .1 and .3 or so seconds in response time lost to moving the trigger finger onto the trigger when a decision has been made to fire, and that having the finger already on the trigger is marginally faster. I can't argue that those very brief time intervals couldn't be critical in a given situation, and in a situation where one was in extreme danger and one already had justification to use deadly force, a finger on the trigger tactic might be appropriate when facing an unrestrained highly dangerous suspect. However, I also maintain that the risk of accidentally shooting someone without either justification or a decision to use deadly force is so high with a finger on the trigger before a decision to fire has been made that, in my opinion and the opinion of many other knowledgeable folks, that practice in most circumstances would constitute gross negligence and be indefensible in light of well documented history and research.

First, thank you for your excellent and informative response, which is your norm.

When I read the article, what I got out of it was that if you are in a life threatening situation and if you know the bad buy(s?) is just around the corner and you know that no one else is at risk (e.g. you are point man and there is zero possibilities of innocent civilians being in the line of fire), then and only then it makes sense to have your finger on the trigger. The examples that I've seen of so-called AD (such as the three youtube videos linked by a commenter in a different thread) are not examples of what is wrong with what Suarez is claiming. Those are examples of extremely poor firearm handling. You don't put your finger on the trigger while drawing or holstering. You don't teach a class with a loaded weapon and you most certainly do not put your finger on the trigger of a loaded gun while teaching a class. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as an AD when the finger is on the trigger. To me an AD is when a gun fires without the trigger being pulled.

I follow your thinking, but bear in mind that you can never know that no innocents are in the line of fire in an area you cannot yet see. Real life just ain't that simple unless you're on the front line in a military free fire zone.

I ran training scenarios that involved building searches where one or more armed felons were known to be hiding, and innocents had fled but it was unknown if all innocent parties had successfully evacuated. Officers had to manage whatever they found just like they do in the field.

On several occasions, officers with a decade or more of experience who searched with finger on the trigger in violation of our department policy and training "shot" unarmed innocents they encountered unexpectedly at close range (e.g., bursting from a hiding place and trying to flee past police to get out of the "danger" area as people in these situations are prone to do). They were immediately challenged by myself or another trainer to justify their use of deadly force. They typically stood there in total shock, realizing that had they taken the same action in the "real world," they would be standing in a position so bad that they knew they'd never recover from it. I got no resistance to my "finger off the trigger" training after that.

I value my life at least as much as the next guy, but I don't put finger on trigger until I've decided to fire right now. Others may see things differently and make different decisions. I've already seen where that goes, and I don't see the point to repeating old mistakes when so many new and creative ones remain available.

[Trinitite]

Very interesting, is expensive or cost is fair? I guess it high caliber instructor/school. It might be worth it.

He's a world famous expert of the combat grimace.

[Bill]

I am not here to defend Gabe but I do recommend his classes, I have taken AK,advance AK, Pistol,Pistol Instructor Training and while he does come off cocky he has put in more hours training than you can imagine. I have also trained at Tactical Response and Hoffner, and several others, about 250 plus hours and spending a lot of time at Impact Zone working outside the box so I am not a newbie.

What I like about Gabe is he is always looking to try new things and to test them in as real scenarios as possible, he does a lot of FOF and in your face stuff. He look at real life what ifs and trys all different angles to see what works. A lot of schools teach the same way for the last 30-40 years and gunfighting has evolved much since then. He is the ultimate AK teacher, he has created an very sucessful enterprise and I commend him for that.

As for the safety, I feel very safe in his classes, in fact he pulled one student out in a advanced AK because he was just not safe enough.

And if you think he's cocky take one of James Yeager's classes.

[ske1eter]

And if you think he's cocky take one of James Yeager's classes.

LOL, been there, got the tshirt.

It seems that Gabe isn't teaching this one but rather one of the guys in pool of instructors (or whatever you want to call it) is, John Payne. There have been a couple of interviews with John about the upcoming class in past podcasts on the http://www.handgunworld.com/.

[Skiprr]

I’ll take a moment to chime in with an agreement to Bill’s post, and to add a personal opinion by way of elaboration.

I’ve taken some courses from Suarez that I thought were well-taught and very meaningful. Don’t have the Yeager T-shirt, however. I mentioned elsewhere that, though the economy and other factors have slowed me, I started about six years ago with the intent to train with a select but broad list of instructors.

That wasn’t to be tacticool; it was because I knew that Master Yoda did not exist.

Anything to do with fighting—whether with guns, other implements, or hands and feet—is liquid, dynamic, by default chaotic, and there is no one best way. There are opinions, some better than others, and the method-du-jour will change over time.

There’s no linear path from first-time handgun owner to “master gunfighter.” There is no one “best” system. There is no one “best” instructor. People teach what they know and, IMHO, sticking with one school of thought is limiting.

And things change. At the turn of the 20th century, the “correct” way for police and military to train for combat with a pistol was in a single-hand, side-on stance against static bullseye targets. What Woodhouse saw in the early 1900s he deconstructed and modified; what Woodhouse taught was deconstructed and modified by Fairbairn and Sykes; what Fairbairn and Sykes taught was modified by Applegate; what Applegate taught was deconstructed and modified by Jeff Cooper; what Cooper taught has been deconstructed and modified. If you study the literature, you realize how quickly this continuing evolution occurs. For example, as recently as 2002 there were only a few instructors/schools that included serious close-contact shooting or CQB force-on-force in civilian classes. Some offered handgun retention training, but that was about it. Flash forward less than a decade, and it’s now difficult to find an instructor who doesn’t at least offer it in the syllabus...albeit some are more expert and experienced at it than others.

So for me the key is to do your research, pick a course, and enter into it wholly and unreservedly committed. If the guy says the pistol should always be fired upside-down with the pinky finger, you might ask for clarification/explanation, but otherwise just do it and absorb the instruction. I don’t have a problem with an instructor who has an ego the size of West Texas. When I’m in his class, it’s his way or the highway. After the class, I hope I’m smart enough to critically evaluate what I learned: some of it I’ll keep, some of it I might not.

Never let your brain stop working and, IMHO, never stay exclusively with a single instructor or instructional method. Be sharp, open-minded, and analytical. Some instructors have a codified system: this is done this way, that is done that way. But the reason Cooper was able to leap beyond Applegate was because he applied analysis and innovation to what had come before.

[badgerw]

It seems that Gabe isn't teaching this one but rather one of the guys in pool of instructors (or whatever you want to call it) is, John Payne. There have been a couple of interviews with John about the upcoming class in past podcasts on the http://www.handgunworld.com/.

I have trained under Jon's instruction. He is GTG.

Bill

[ELB]

...
So for me the key is to do your research, pick a course, and enter into it wholly and unreservedly committed. If the guy says the pistol should always be fired upside-down with the pinky finger, you might ask for clarification/explanation, but otherwise just do it and absorb the instruction. I don’t have a problem with an instructor who has an ego the size of West Texas. When I’m in his class, it’s his way or the highway. After the class, I hope I’m smart enough to critically evaluate what I learned: some of it I’ll keep, some of it I might not.
...

'zackly.

[goamerishield]

The key is to commit to instruction on a regular basis and obtain it from a variety of sources. Find what works for you.

[v-rog]

I agree with your well thought out logic. I don't have personal knowledge of the person in question but I would rather go with someone local such as Gordon Carol who has received positive feedback from people I respect and trust.

http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/01/ ... ering.html

This ludicrous article, among others. If you search on here somewhere we had a little chat about him a while ago.

Mr. Suarez is not on my list of folks whose classes I'd jump through hoops to attend either. I won't elaborate on my reasoning here other than to say that a reading of the article Gigag04 cited above should raise enough red flags to serve as fair warning for anyone who has not come across his work before.

Please elaborate. Innuendo does none of us any good. What is wrong with the article?

Mr. Suarez is out and out wrong about the startle response and sympathetic contraction not causing unintentional discharges, and in my opinion his experiments to disprove these phenomena are not valid because the participants were not surprised or startled and knew what was about to happen. Different and very bad things happen when these events occur suddenly and with complete surprise under high stress conditions.

You can find the basic facts of several such instances here. There was a similar incident several months ago where a Plano undercover officer unintentionally shot a suspect he was attempting to place under arrest. It has been alleged that he accidentally pulled the trigger while trying to activate his weapon mounted flashlight. This may or may not turn out to be the case, but it would be hard to argue that the gun would have fired if his trigger finger had remained outside the trigger guard until and unless a deadly force situation had arisen.

When I went through my first police firearms training at the academy, we were trained to cover a suspect with finger on the trigger. During the following years I personally saw enough close calls (including some of my own) and read enough incident reports to conclude that was an unacceptably dangerous practice. When I assumed command of training operations I made finger off the trigger until a decision has been made to fire an explicit part of the firearms training program. Officers were skeptical until I provided each one with a dozen or so historical incidents of where the finger on the trigger practice had led to tragedy. Was agency liability a concern in changing the practice? Yes. Training officers to do known dangerous things certainly creates liability when those practices lead to disaster. However, the more important consideration was preventing a readily foreseeable tragedy that would devastate an officer, a suspect, and both families if a negligent shooting occurred.

Mr. Suarez had an active police career and speaks from personal experience on the realities of what happens during violent encounters. However, he takes some positions that I would consider irresponsible. This is a major issue when one is a trainer whose words are taken as gospel by others. The article in question is one example.

In this instance he is correct that there is somewhere between .1 and .3 or so seconds in response time lost to moving the trigger finger onto the trigger when a decision has been made to fire, and that having the finger already on the trigger is marginally faster. I can't argue that those very brief time intervals couldn't be critical in a given situation, and in a situation where one was in extreme danger and one already had justification to use deadly force, a finger on the trigger tactic might be appropriate when facing an unrestrained highly dangerous suspect. However, I also maintain that the risk of accidentally shooting someone without either justification or a decision to use deadly force is so high with a finger on the trigger before a decision to fire has been made that, in my opinion and the opinion of many other knowledgeable folks, that practice in most circumstances would constitute gross negligence and be indefensible in light of well documented history and research.

[Paladin]

I've heard first hand reviews of Close Range Gunfighting and have the DVDs.

While Gabe is certainly controversial and not everything he as ever done is flawless (we are all human), the material is excellent and Gabe is also an skilled at delivering the material.

Training on this Close Range Gunfighting material could quite literally be the difference between life and death in a gunfight. I practice the techniques regularly.

[Lambda Force]

$112, 250.01 restitution for wages he was paid while he was on workers comp

If that's typical, it explains why California is bankrupt.

[Pug]