Thursday, June 16, 2011

C.A.R. Shooting System?

I just wanted to say thanks for all you do.  I started out reading your blog months ago and find it not only informative but grounding.  When researching about modern survivalist topics or watching youtube gear reviews, it is very easy to get caught up in the slippery slope of what ifs scenarios and feel overwhelmed – not only about the amount basic preparations families need and don’t have, but the feeling that oneself is crossing into the line of crazy that you read about in the news. But you flat out say to people – don’t go walking around in full camo with an AR strapped to your back.  Instead you share experiences like looking back in time, the one things you and your wife would buy is more food.  People are out there speculating dollar collapse, EMPs, super-bugs, or zombies; your information is not speculation, it is reality in Argentina.
That being said, its still fun to buy full multi-cam camo, ARs accessories, and be a mall ninja.  At least I admit it to myself when I’m doing it.  I will go do something practical and buy four fire extinguishers because every house should have them (cars, furnace, kitchen).   Then afterwards I will sate the mall ninja in me and go and look at web gear available online just in case WROL happens and I need to wear it.
Here are a few links I found that I thought might interest you.
The first is a practical thread about hurricane Katrina and the real life experiences of an individual.
The second is more fun, a shooting system based on close quarters combat.
You’ve inspired me to be a self-proclaimed “prepper” and I maybe even start blogging my learning experiences.  Thanks again.

Hi! Thanks for your email. Zombiehunters has some good stuff, I’m a member there as well. ;)
Oh, I’ve got way too much gear as well :-) . As long as you keep it real its all good. What I try doing is spending my time and ammo in ways in which it would be most benefical in case I ever need it. As I said in a previous post, train with the clothes you actually wear, the gun you’d carry and the holster you would use.  Using the latest Blackhawk! holster in a  vest carring your thousand dollar 1911 but actually pocket carrying a 380 ACP means there’s little connection between the way you train and what you really end up doing on the street.

About C.A.R., Mr. Castle lost me at “This system (CAR) simply outperforms the other systems because it works in harmony with your body …)
I tend to approach all new things in the gun and training world with caution. A particular stance, move or technique? Its all good as long as I see its use. A new system that claims to be the next step of evolution in the tactical and defensive shooting world? Pass me the salt please, I’ll take a few extra large grains of it.
My most humble recommendation is to approach all new things with caution, the more flamboyant and cocky they are the greater the caution. You should start by asking yourself some questions. Why is this better than what I already know? How much sense does it make? How many schools and teams are practicing this supposedly better systems? Is this the new standard for militart training, or SWAT or some other highly regarded defensive shooting school?

Claiming that your system is the next step of tactical evolution is a pretty big statement. Did such instructor kill a coupel dozen bad guys in gun fights with it? Ok, then I’m listening. How about proving your system is better by beating shooters using traditional isosceles, Weaver or modified Weaver in stages, proving your system´s greater speed and accuracy during.
Could Mr. Castle honestly approach this guy and tell him CAR is better and faster than isosceles?

Call me crazy but moving like that is a thousand times more natural than moving like this:

In the case of C.A.R a few things are obvious:

1) Unless you are a crab, you walk forwards not sideways, so from the beginning how natural the system is becomes a matter of debate. At times when it makes the most sense its just a modified weaver which already exists. By not looking facing your potential threat and being at a 90% angle, you are literally just blinding yourself to 50% of the potential threats in front of you! How this can be called natural is beyond me. Even the IPSC sport shooting video I included above would be much more natural in a real fight that turning your back to half the threats ahead of you.

2) The distances at which this system is being used are extremly close, just a couple feet, so in terms of accuracy advantage over traditional systems, there’s no advantage. Two feet away as in one of those videos, gun already drawn? Heck I can pull the trigger fast as well. Calmly shooting at a paper target 2 feet away? Of course you’ll hit it, you might as well shoot with your eyes closed and you’ll still hit it ( call it the Telepathy Shooting System and cash in on it)

3) In terms of speed I find this rather complicated and slow.  Lets say you need to draw and shoot as fast as possible, at extreme close range. The fastest way to go about it would be a traditional extreme close range drill, drawing, rotating as soon as you clear the holster and shooting, gun pressed against your side and you pump rounds as you “close the zipper” on the bad guy. If there’s an angle you just rotate your hip to shoot whatever needs shooting. At least that makes more sense and clearly has less steps for fast, short range shooting.

4) The body armor problem. In their website they explain that the system is compatible with body armor because you shouldn’t count on your armor stopping bullets… … ok … …
There’s a saying about excuses: Your friends don’t need them and your enemies won´t believe them. Being canted in such a way is the worst stance when wearing body armor because you lose a lot of the tactical advantage provided by the armor. You offer the side of your arm, and the armpit gap of your armor. In the case of armor plates, they don’t cover your sides at all so you might as well not wear any armor when going against rifle rounds and using this stance.  If you are hit in the shoulder when on isosceles stance it may not be a fatal wound, now when canted at a 90º angle that round is much more likely to get to your lungs, heart and spine. Not good, and especially not good if armor is involved. Those of you that have read my blog for a while know how I feel about body armor. You should have it along with your gun and flashlight in case of home invasions and put it on if there’s time. It’s a huge tactical advantage when lead is flying both ways. Losing that advantage, and doing so in exchange for nothing makes no sense to me.

5)At times in these videos you see the instructor with the gun in what seems to be a modified SUL position, pointing to the left with the gun rather than pointing down (!?) Whats the logic of that, I don’t know. When going into rooms with a team, all bunched together, SUL makes sense. If there’s an accidental discharge it’s the direction for keeping the gun barrel in which you are less likely to kill your team mate. When using SUL,  a slight rotation of the gun directs it towards the thread, that’s what I´d work with for extreme close distance with no-shoots all around, not keeping the gun diagonally pointed to my left.

I think John Farnam said it best:
“21 June 02
On current shooting fads, from an LEO trainer in the Midwest:
“It amazes me the number of guys who unhesitatingly leap onto every bandwagon that comes along, not because it’s superior, but because they so desperately want to be relevant.
Two years ago, a group of our guys became all fired up with the ˜Israeli shooting technique.’ This is the one where your first move is to draw and then chamber a round, because your pistol is carried unloaded. I don’t know about you, but I customarily carry my pistol loaded, so I was never able to see the point. However, if you put ˜Israeli’ or ˜Tactical’ in the title, kiddies will predictably flock to your door.
Last year I went to a regional seminar. One-handed, unaimed shooting was all the rage then. This shooting technique rears its ugly head every few years, until its most ardent promoters demonstrate authoritatively that even they can’t hit anything.
This year, several of our guys went to a seminar on the ˜Central Axis Relock’ pistol technique. It is basically a Weaver, contorted and turned sideways. In addition to being strained, one actually blocks his vision to one side, because his arm gets in the way. It is just another dreary reinvention of the wheel. However, these guys were ALL fired up. Mostly I think, because it is their chance to be trendy, ˜cutting edge,’ and all that. When they get old (like us), they will, like us, have lived long enough to have seen this twaddle periodically recycled, under a new and trendy term, every few years.
I had to ask them, ˜Does any of this stuff work significantly better than what we do now?’”
/John “

Stick to traditional systems folks, and careful about those trying to reinvent the wheel.
Join the forum discussion on this post


dc.sunsets said...

The guy in the CAR video seems to shoot with parts of his body ahead of the muzzle.

A little inattention to grip or a slippery gun under the torque of firing might see him shoot himself, at least as it appeared on the video.

Thanks, but no thanks. A technique that risks doing the opponent's work for him is not for me.

FerFAL said...

Hi David, that's right and I forgot to mention that important point. You have your forearm ahead of the muzzle and the risk of shooting yourself is ridiculously high. Its also a technique you simply CANT use with a revolver, otherwise you get burned.
The gun just too close to the face in some other stances as well and all for what? Crazzy accuracy at 2 feet away? Other stances and techniques do just as well or better without risdking the shooter.

dc.sunsets said...

Also, given how close the gun is to the face, imagine shooting without hearing protection, or not wearing adequately protective eye wear. Defensive gun use assumes you are equipped as you are at the grocery store, and few of us wear ear plugs/muffs while shopping. (Some of us do wear protective eye glasses all the time, it's called "getting older.")

Shooting when the opponent is extremely close seems like a last-ditch, extremely risky affair. To train to operate that way looks like learning to swim fully clothed. It may happen but it's surely not the norm or you're doing something wrong.

Maldek said...

Adrian's video is very impressive - holy cow, what a monster!