Israeli Secret Service Active Shooter Doctrine

[TheDan]

holy crap...

 

[Force_Multiplier]

There's your answer.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Stating the information in this video that pertains to statements made regarding a response as to how ineffective Israeli doctrine is. The statement that Israel is fighting a 3rd rate warrior holds no merit. Who are we fighting in the middle east? 1st rate? This video is meant to inform. Nothing else. If you feel the tactics you've learned are superior, use them. I hope some get value out of them. I realized a long time ago, I can't save the world. I would challenge those in opposition to post a video of their own, and share what they've learned so that all of us might be better in the end. It's very easy to post a comment, or a reply. It's much more difficult to post a video for consumption.

 

[scap99]

Wow, my post #28 (There's your answer) must have really struck a nerve.

You've replied to it in posts 29, 32, & 42.

I won't feel fully awesome until you reply to it 6 more times.



Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Drinking and forum-ing...not a good combination for attempting an articulate response. No nerves struck.

I like the responses. They always shed light on new areas of improvement, and help me weigh the level of exposure of the responders.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

That's because he's trolling. He's just staying "in character" very consistently.

I'll just say it, NO ONE serious uses "Israeli pistol techniques". You will not find a single, reputable instructor that teaches LE/Mil and civilians on a large scale, that uses these sorts of techniques.

There are only 2 types of Israeli pistol technique advocates:

1. People that don't know what they're talking about
2. Those that are trolling for laughs, YT views, or whatever

Sig, it's so weird. All these people teaching, and taking schools on Israeli Doctrine, by IDF SF and American personnel. And none of them know what they're talking about. They must be trolling for website views, and all the massively invasive views (170 last month - $.71 a month in revenue laughing all the way to the bank) they're getting on Youtube or Vimeo. It's nuts. Thanks for stopping by with your go-to troll comment. I really do get a kick out of it. It wouldn't be the same without it :-).

http://www.defensereview.com/articl...ve-shooter-tactics-techniques-and-procedures/
http://www.israelicombattraining.com/training_article.pdf
http://thetixgroup.com/TIX/Active Shooter .html
http://www.combatconcepts.info/instructor.html

 

[Force_Multiplier]

That's because he's trolling. He's just staying "in character" very consistently.

I'll just say it, NO ONE serious uses "Israeli pistol techniques". You will not find a single, reputable instructor that teaches LE/Mil and civilians on a large scale, that uses these sorts of techniques.

There are only 2 types of Israeli pistol technique advocates:

1. People that don't know what they're talking about
2. Those that are trolling for laughs, YT views, or whatever

Look at all these professionals that don't know what they're talking about: :-)

http://www.combatconcepts.info/recommandations.html

 

[TheDan]

Well Force_Multiplier, I will say you are about the most cordial sumbitch on this forum.

Lasted longer than most I suppose.

 

[scap99]

Look at all the Tae Kwon Do schools!

See, i can do it too!

I can find something that is far from useful and then say due to the amount of classes available everyone else has to be wrong.


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Lasted longer than most I suppose.

Kind words from both. Being cordial, and also lasting longer than most are compliments in my world. In a world of keyboard rangers that won't post videos, but will respond with pointless comments keeps me leveled. It also helps me continue progressing. I really appreciate both You, and Dan for chiming in. Although, you and him may not always agree with me, it doesn't mean I'm not wrong. Perhaps that's what forums where designed for? I know that's my way of taking them on these days. No sense in getting too riled up over something as simple as a rebuttal that isn't backed up by anything other than words. Be well. Hopefully you gain something out of all of this thread's interesting-ness. - Force.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Look at all the Tae Kwon Do schools!

See, i can do it too!

I can find something that is far from useful and then say due to the amount of classes available everyone else has to be wrong.


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

So, at this point, it's fairly obvious you only saw the links, and didn't click on any of them. Ironic, considering you're mobile, and it's at the touch of your finger tip...literally. If you'd have delved a little further, your response would've been different. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, like you have me so many times. BTW, what's the link to your channel? Do you have anything instructional out there with you in it? Or just a wiki version of someone else, Sir? I'd be really interested in learning from someone so critical of someone else? It, most certainly, means you're so critical of yourself, you'd be nothing less than perfection. Perhaps you'd be better suited in a Glock forum then, though...I hope this finds you well.

 

[scap99]

So, at this point, it's fairly obvious you only saw the links, and didn't click on any of them. Ironic, considering you're mobile, and it's at the touch of your finger tip...literally. If you'd have delved a little further, your response would've been different. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, like you have me so many times. BTW, what's the link to your channel? Do you have anything instructional out there with you in it? Or just a wiki version of someone else, Sir? I'd be really interested in learning from someone so critical of someone else? It, most certainly, means you're so critical of yourself, you'd be nothing less than perfection. Perhaps you'd be better suited in a Glock forum then, though...I hope this finds you well.

Seriously?

I've posted in here 3 times, and I'm so critical of someone else that I must be perfect?



Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Let me preface the following with a statement. Don't mistake my being brief with being disingenuous. If you read through some of the posts I've created on this site, you would find that I've put massive effort into forming the opinions and beliefs I have, as well as in creating the content I've felt would benefit people. This is why you'll notice that, despite my being here since the beginning and co-founding this site, there are people that have only been here a year or two that have 2-3x the post count. Quality versus quantity. My energy for this has dropped off as of late, as it's rather disappointing spending hours writing a several thousand word series of well-thought out posts, only to receive a couple "great post!" comments and that's about it.


That being said, I am a very busy person. My job happens to be serving as the primary organic marketing strategist for a site that sees roughly ~800 million visits per month. Needless to say, I don't have a whole lot of personal time anymore. Regardless, I'm going to give you an hour of my time, on the off chance that I'm mistaken, and you are genuine in your beliefs, and I appear to you to simply be a jerk. So here it goes...

Here's a video comparing and explaining the israeli technique covered in the class:

1:09 - This is what we'd typically refer to as a #2 ready position. Mandating a 90deg position of the gun in the #2 is too restrictive, IMO. I can think of many scenarios where one might need to have the gun in a different #2 position, based on surroundings and circumstances. For example, are you moving through a crowd of mostly innocent people, attempting to get clear and take a shot on an active shooter? If so, a position more like the "Southnarc" method would probably be more responsible and more appropriate. The Southnarc method utilizes a thumb-pectoral index, muzzle depressed roughly 45degrees. Depending on your proximity to non-threats, you can elevate your elbow to increase the angle and further reduce the risk of muzzle sweeping an innocent. 90 degrees at all times in #2 is restrictive and potentially negligent, depending on the circumstances, though as with all things, it may have its time and place in the right circumstance.


2:20 - Your description of "The American Doctrine" on slicing the pie is a bit simplistic, and by no means actual "doctrine" in common practice across the majority of the domestic training industry. That's basically the 70's or 80's foundation of slicing the pie, but it has evolved since then. The description of the "Israeli technique" in slicing the pie, as demonstrated, has several flaws, IMO. Again, it appears to be absolute in that, "If you're doing an offensive clear, you MUST do it this way." At least, that's the gist I took away from it.


The actual modern thinking and training on clearing and "slicing the pie" has become far more dynamic, and less absolute. I'll speak about it in terms of "clearing". You have slow methodical clears. You also have faster and more aggressive, offensive clears, which for the average civilian are likely inadvisible in most situations, with a lot of potential downsides. It's entirely situation dependent. You have varying degrees of angle, height of stance, proximity to cover or concealment, funnels, elevations, elevations with intermediate landings, portals, intersections.... I mean the list goes on. One technique to rule them all, or even 50%, would be preposterous. Depending on the situation, a slow, methodical clear, as you appropriately stated, might be more appropriate, safer, and providing the greatest advantages in terms of maximizing use of angles, cover, and concealment to identify threats as early as possible while exposing as little of yourself as possible. The other option, if it is one depending on the circumstances, is to barricade yourself and never have to do a clear in the first place...


The other side is of course a fast-paced offensive clear. Yes, we can all think of realistic or at least plausible circumstances where this could be necessary. Maybe your child's bedroom is positioned between your room and an entryway, or is simply on the other side of the house. If a loved one is potentially at serious risk in that scenario, and there is distance between you, it is up to you to make the call to go offensive, ready to faceshoot some fools. It's not a choice everyone has the mental capacity to make, with a winning mindset, but it is an option.


So to summarize, the modern training and thinking on clearing, slicing the pie, or whatever, is one of simply managing angles, distance, cover, concealment, and speed in the most advantageous and performance-oriented manner for the given situation. The "performance" part of that might sound a bit arbitrary, but I figure that's sufficient enough to summarize it (performance of safety, speed, accuracy, etc.)


6:40-7:00 - Please link us to those FBI statistics. Claims like that demand proof. I can't remember ever seeing FBI stats that would support those claims.


7:00-8:00 - To summarize, in effect, they (or at least that school) are basing their training around the Pareto principle of "20% of something does 80% of the work". There is kind of a failure in deductive reasoning in going that route, as it encourages a low capacity for competition and low capacity for improving performance. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with emphasizing the percentage of items that stand to benefit people the most (when supported by legitimate and/or peer-reviewed data). That being said, truly successful people delve into that remaining 80% to continue pushing their skill level far beyond the average person only using 20%. This concept is the reason you will typically not see any quantifiable and measurable performance standards from a lot of training schools, as it can often demand that a person put a little more effort than just the bare minimum.


10:47 - Sorry, the reality is, in pretty much any state or jurisdiction, that description will get you convicted of murder. Depending on what your intention was with the description in the video, it's either a potential conflict of terminology and alluding to a winner's mindset, or its advocating what would legally be considered murder in any and all self-defense situations.

1:00 - Fine vs. Gross motor skills argument has been thorougly debunked, and is not a valid excuse for demanding rigid adherance to specific techniques. If you can draw a gun at speed, if you can align small posts, if you can press the trigger, if you can press the mag release, if you can draw a mag and insert it at speed, if you can press a slide release lever.... you can do pretty much anything. I wonder what Michael Schumacher would have to say about fine motor skills "degrading" under stress?


1:20 - That's just fucking ridiculous.


1:40 - There is no legitimate or necessary reason to do that. Under stress, when those fine motor skills degrade....you're going to flap your arms like a bird and practically rack the slide off of your chin? Shit is range theatrics with no quantifiable or measurable performance advantage.


1:51 - Point and fact. A typical modern drawstroke (feel free to call it the "American dogma" or whatever) will normally have the gun going straight from the holster, in a relatively straight line, at a 45 degree angle straight up to the target. This is of course assuming for that draw that you did not have a need to instead draw to a ready or retention (#2 or #3) fire position, based on circumstances. Tomer states that their drawstroke assists with keeping the gun on target ("better" is the implication) throughout the drawstroke. If you look at the demonstration, and it is consistent with the Israeli drawstroke technique I have seen taught by a number of other instructors, the arms and gun are actually travelling in a CORKSCREW motion... So a corkscrew is more consistent than a straight line? NO, it's not. Period.


Additionally, another American method different from the traditional "straight line" method (I just made that up), is what some refer to as the "press out" method. Todd Green and a few others are proponents of this method. It can have some advantages in certain circumstances, such as drawing close to cover. That being said, I have personally found myself to be SIGNIFICANTLY less consistent with it, even after devoting significant training time to trying to improve my performance with it (used throughout several training classes and a solid year's worth of IDPA matches and my own personal training). Regardless, some people like Todd and some other noteworthy shooters have achieved respectable performance with it, though this is much more likely due to individual physiological differences, individual training, and depth of training. Case and point, even though most instructors would no longer advocate wrapping an index finger around the trigger guard, Eric Grauffel, one of the best pistol shooters in the world, does it...and has been winning things for a good 20 years.


2:30 - "We do not use sights" Let me just put this one to bed right there. If you have time and opportunity to have the gun at full extension, you have time and opportunity to use the sights. If you don't have time and opportunity to use the sights, you should NOT be at full extension, but should instead be at either some degree of partial extension and/or a #3 position (chest ready), or a #2 position. No argument, he's just plain WRONG. Anything less is simply negligence.


2:50 - A discussion about finding a balance between time and accuracy, that apparently does not include using a shot timer, is simply not sufficient, and arbitrary at best. In short, a person doesn't know what they don't know, unless they measure it. I'm done with this video.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Special Operations, such as Secret Service, have moved away from it, but due to wide spread ND's throughout the country, the regular army, etc., still load a weapon on deployment.

This doesn't really "prove" anything about the supposed efficacy of unchambered carry. Domestically, we get by just fine without doing that, and there is a lot of training and training organizations on the close quarters / force on force side of things that would appear to demonstrate no real issue with carrying chambered. In short, it's a non-issue.

http://www.defensereview.com/articl...ve-shooter-tactics-techniques-and-procedures/

David Crane's own words: "I was tasked with writing an article on the course by a tactical print publication that wanted an article written from a perspective that required immersion/participation in the course"



In other words, he was likely paid for the article and/or taking the class, or received a discount or free admission to the class. It was a marketing piece, and he pulls in plenty of ad revenue from his site if you do some math... Nothing wrong with that, but it hardly makes for an impartial and objective assessment of things.

http://www.israelicombattraining.com/training_article.pdf

The article starts out fairly well in terms of setting the stage. Then there's this:




"It makes sense to look at systems which elevate armed defense to its highest, most effective level"




Can't argue with that. I would say that's right on the money. The problem is, that's the lead in to apparently legitimizing the Isreli pistol method. I'll explain why that's ridiculous.




First off, the examples used on the remaining pages feature Ben Goldstein. If you research this fool, there is video of him having students fire from the #3 (chest ready) retention, at a full speed sprint, at targets 25 freaking YARDS away. There is some downright heinous-ass negligence in his training.




"Body position": Okay, this is fine. Many ways, but this one is alright.




"Gun 1 position": This is alright too. It leaves out a traditional #2 position at thumb-pectoral index, which might be advisable in certain circumstances, but it's certainly better than a student having no drawstroke training.




Notice the emphasis on "while charging at full speed towards your attackers, when necessary!!!!" LOL You have to see the videos...




"Gun 2 position": Mostly okay. Simplifying the drawstroke to 3 steps can work well for some students. The main issue is the continued emphasis on absolutely not using the sights under any circumstances. Again, if you have time and opportunity... If you don't, you shouldn't be fully extended, as you are inviting a gun grab attempt.




The last page of this article is just a complete joke. We are setup with this lofty expectation, "It makes sense to look at systems which elevate armed defense to its highest, most effective level", as if we are going to be shown a system that has demonstrable and measurable performance advantages....only to have absolutely no proof of anything ever provided.


I will end this article review by reflecting on this quote from the last page, "Simply put, it’s not a game, but rather, it is a fighting system to be utilized when life is on the line, and losing is not an option." When losing is not an option, why not use what has measurable performance advantages, and that the winningest shooters in the world have been consistently using in evolving form since the 80's... Yes, competition is a "game", but so is winning at life. You must place effective (accurate) shots on target, under time constraints, with solid target discrimination, and dealing with ambiguous problems on the fly, at speed. Literally NONE of which Israeli pistol techniques are capable of demonstrating in a legitimate manner.

Look at all these professionals that don't know what they're talking about: :-) http://www.combatconcepts.info/recommandations.html

I hate to say it but, everyone fucks up ever so often, and things also evolve. The reality is that, with the rigid insistence of most (if not all) Israeli pistol styles in never using the sights, this style of training is downright negligent at best. There is always a time for "point shooting", which I prefer to refer to as "shooting from index", "indexed fire", or simply retention fire. However, the "Israeli" interpretation of this is far too absolute, and used in situations outside of the realm of reasonability for utilizing a lesser-aimed method of fire.

Kind words from both. Being cordial, and also lasting longer than most are compliments in my world. In a world of keyboard rangers that won't post videos, but will respond with pointless comments keeps me leveled. It also helps me continue progressing. I really appreciate both You, and Dan for chiming in. Although, you and him may not always agree with me, it doesn't mean I'm not wrong. Perhaps that's what forums where designed for? I know that's my way of taking them on these days. No sense in getting too riled up over something as simple as a rebuttal that isn't backed up by anything other than words. Be well. Hopefully you gain something out of all of this thread's interesting-ness. - Force.

I actually would love to start posting videos again. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time or ability to focus on that right now. I might in a few months, depending on how a particular site build progresses and how much closer to launch I get.



Indexed Fire AKA "Point Shooting"



When it comes to the term "point shooting", people often mean entirely different things, and for entirely different purposes. The way I see it, there are 2 primary "unsighted fire" methods, although there are a large variety of techniques within each. There is what people typically think of as point shooting, which largely means using unsighted fire most of the time, including with the gun at full extension. In the context of that traditional definition, point shooting is utterly indiscriminate, which is a bad thing. There is no one-size-fits-all method.



The other end of the spectrum is what I personally like to refer to as "indexed fire". In essence, you are using varying degrees of reference points to index your gun on target. Typically, this is done when time and opportunity do not allow shooting with the gun at full extension. For example, a threat at close range and/or moving towards you. If they're arms length, maybe you're at a #2 position. If they're a little farther, maybe ~3yds give or take, you might opt for a #3 "chest ready" position. This is entirely dependent on the target, the difficulty of the shot, the circumstances (surroundings, speed, movement, etc.), as well as the skill level of the shooter. A new shooter doesn't yet have the subconscious competence that an experienced shooter would, therefore their distances to use such a technique will tend to be closer. Some of the main points with indexed fire are that you are utilizing reference points and body positioning to achieve as high a degree of consistency to achieve acceptable accuracy and performance on target.



For example, in a #2 position, there are various methods. There is the gun at 90 degrees, perfectly horizontal. There is the muzzle depressed at 45 degrees, but the hand is loosely at your side. There's the classic "speed rock", where some people even lean back and effectively tip the gun upward in a #2 (usually ends up being ~90deg to you, but you're leaning back, so the muzzle may actually be elevated). There are other methods as well. The #2 position I prefer is the thum-pectoral index, often taught by Craig Douglas (Southnarc) of Shivworks, though there have been other instructors that have used similar variations. With the "TPI", the gun is brought straight up out of the holster, wrist rotated up and locked, thumb flagged and brought to around the pectoral level, inside gun grip and base of the palm/thumb wedged up against your chest. It's usually easiest to replicate this by thinking about simply bringing your elbow straight upwards, if that makes sense. Utilizing the "TPI" method, you have a solid firing position in that the gun is wedged into the side of your chest, and your arm is locked in a position that minimizes potential movement. So the position is stable, and also functions well for minimizing muzzle flip with one-handed shooting. Also, with the thumb-pectoral index, you have an added degree of consistency in that you have a consistent index point which allows you to develop a pretty good degree of subconscious competence in knowing where your rounds are going to go at the appropriate distances you'd be using this position. They're going to go low in the gut or pelvis area, but it's typically going to be safer, and more repeatable, as opposed to say 90 degrees and potentially launching liabilities into bystanders...

 

[SIG_Fiend]

With the #3 position, you are bringing the gun up more to your mid to high chest level. As with any technique, there are a large number of variations here as well. A #3 position could be a firing position, or in other variations it could be a ready position. No one single one will do everything you need all the time, therefore simply switch between them based on what a particular situation dictates. A typical #3 firing position will have the gun relatively parallel to the ground and straight forward. Some have the gun on the centerline of their chest. Others choose to have the gun biased towards their dominant eye side (if they're dominant hand is the same as their dominant eye). For me, I tend to favor centerline of the chest, but I'm cross dominant (right hand, left eye). Either way, what the #3 achieves is a greater degree of index, increased consistency, and an increased ability for accuracy and recoil control. You now have both hands on the gun. You can have your elbows jammed into your sides or chest if you like, can deathgrip the gun with both hands if necessary. Generally speaking, you can be more effective at a slightly longer distance (say ~3-5yds for some shooters, give or take), while still maintaining accountability for your performance and accuracy. The important thing here is choosing body positioning you can consistently maintain. For me, I typically choose elbows/back of the forearms clamping the sides of my gut.

From there, it's a good shooter's discretion what to do between #3 and a traditional #4 shooting at full extension. You may be in between, at partial extension, and still needing to take a shot. Whatever, do what works, just do it in a manner that allows you to ensure consistency and accountability for your shots. If you're at #4, however, and still not using the sights (even if it's just a soft focus and looking through them), you're not doing it right.



TL;DR Version Of The Israeli Pistol Method


It has no demonstrable, measurable performance advantage over other techniques. Any advantage ascribed to its methods is arbitrary, immeasurable, and never survives the peer review process when put to the test with industry leaders.

 

[Younggun]

Great post.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[karlac]

Great post.

Haha. Now, where he put that damn ban hammer ...

 

[Younggun]

Lmao.

In my defense, I did read all of it. He kinda creates the issue by giving such detailed posts that there's really not much to add.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[RACER X]

I think he broke the Internet

sent from the batcloset in the batcave on the batphone

 

[jrbfishn]

Sig, I may not always respond to your post.
But damned if I can think of any that I thought were offtrack or did not make me think about things.
Few and far between, but always worth reading. Good luck with the work sir. Look foward to seeing you again.

sent from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[Tejano Scott]

Sig, that is an amazing post. And like YG, I read it all. It took 3 settings, but I read every word. So much gold in them hills. Thanks for taking the time to do that.