Saurez: MORE FORCE ON FORCE LESSONS

[SeekHer]

Submitted just as received in the e-mail to me from Suarez International

MORE FORCE ON FORCE LESSONS

I often get asked a number of questions about force on force. Here are some.

1). how much of the square range stuff does carry over successfully into FOF?

That depends on what sort of range stuff you have done. In several years and maybe a thousand students through the training I have yet to see anyone use a "proper weaver stance", nor calmly fire controlled pairs while watching their sights in a reactive encounter.

What I do see them do, in reactive drills (versus proactive ambushes) is dynamically move out of the line of fire, draw and thrust the gun out, working the trigger like the gun was a Class 3 Machinegun. There is of course, a place for proactive sighted fire, but if that is all someone has been doing (like in 99% of commercial US gun schools) they are totally unprepared for a gunfight.

2). Are skills like the draw and a two-handed grip considered secondary to learning the dynamic draws and movements in FOF that allow you to avoid the initial shot? Or, would it be better to establish a solid foundation in the basics first and then bring those skills to FOF?

After doing this for several years now, I think learning FOF first makes far more sense. In the beginning I went the other way because the vast majority of the "market" came from the range training world and then, at some point, wanted to test themselves in FOF. Today we see alot of new shooters wanting to learn gunfighting and not so much shoot like they do at a classic gunschool. It is far easier to teach aman who knows how to fight about marksmanship, than it is to teach a marksman how to fight.

3). Should I learn to experience (and then win) the fight first and then go back and develop solid gun-handling skills based on the contexts I experienced during the test.

That would be best. Once a student has felt the adrenaline of the fight, and knows exactly what he will need to do, he understands how he needs to train. The result uis a very finely tuned BS meter, an irreverance for gun gurus (our students could hand most gun guru's butts to them), and a desire to test everything to see if it works.

The main reason why more guys don't do this is the same reason so many martial arts schools don't do "Full Contact Fighting". After a full contact fight, both sides look like they were in a street fight. Fighting like this is humbling, but it will get you ready for the real thing.

Training for reality is not like the "martial artist" who shows up to "train" in a splendidly pressed uniform and does some classic ancient solo-form against unseen enemies with technical perfection that leaves everyone gasping and feeling good - specially the performer.

Nope. You can train for ego, or you can train to win.

I would say that 99% of all American Commercial Gun Schools are not in the business of teaching anyone to REALLY fight, they are in the business of empowering their students, or teaching people to feel good about themselves.

Its like that school that has a Handgun Combat Master certification. They teach guys to pass the test (originally invented by Chuck Taylor to challenge the existing status quo for commercial reasons) and then send them off into the world with highly inflated opinions of their own combat skills.

While these guys know how to shoot well against a piece of cardboard, when they have come to our "cage" they have not done so well. In fact, trying to hard to force their hard-trained techniques to work in a fluid situation like our drills, they often get shot to bits by more agile and less classically trained opponents.

So what does that tell me? That the majority of so called "defensive shooting" training out there is virtually worthless in a real fight. If you ain't doing FOF, you are not ready for the gunfight!


Gabe Suarez

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.