# Those little extras



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2004)

Well...as a constructive offshoot of the long "experience" thread, I started thinking about ways to use my "experience" to benefit folks here. My technical expertise in MA is not advanced enough for me to give anybody advice or critique on technique. But there are some things that I am pretty experienced in. What Im going to post here isnt technically MA and may be more firearms related, but in light of my earlier statement of belief that MA is in a good postion to lead the "combatives" field, I feel that maybe those folks who incorporate firearms into their training may find it useful. I was kind of hoping the thread could lead to other folks posting "other than MA" info that could be useful in a MA "combatives" program.

Since this is one of my favorite topics, I figured Id put together a little primer on handgun operation basics for the martial artist. Its very basic and is based on the assumption of a gun grab. Many instructors may teach to deflect the weapon and attack the BG. Take it for what its worth.



*HANDGUNS*

Handguns, by and large (there are some other designs), come in 2 different flavors, Revolvers and Automatics. Almost everybody knows the difference between the two so I wont go into too much detail regarding their parts and basic differences.



*REVOLVERS*: The wheel gun. The old cowboy guns were single action, which means that the hammer has to be cocked by hand and pulling the trigger drops the hammer on the round. Almost all modern revolvers are double action. This means that when you pull the trigger the hammer starts moving back, the cylinder turns bringing a new round under the hammer and the hammer falls on that round, all in one stroke. Many revolvers have a half **** safety this means that if you pull the hammer back with your thumb to the first click, the hammer cant be moved by the trigger. The shooter has to **** the hammer the rest of the way manually and then pull the trigger. If the shooter desires less travel in the trigger he can **** the hammer all the way back, enabling firing with less trigger movement and more accuracy.



*Advantage*: Hardly ever jams or malfunctions. Point and shoot.

*Disadvantage*: Ammo capacity. Frequent re-loading.

*What this means to the martial artist*: Stop the cylinder from revolving and the weapon wont fire. If the hammer is back or moving back, get a finger or web of your thumb between the hammer and the round and the weapon wont fire. Half **** it (good luck in a fight but I suppose its possible) and the BG has to **** it by hand to get it to fire. Note: Some revolvers have shielded or internal hammers that you cant block. (designed for concealment, less snagging and no chance of anything blocking the hammer)



*AUTOMATICS*: A removable magazine holds bullets under spring tension and feeds them into the weapon. When fired, recoil forces the slide of the weapon back, ejecting the empty case. Springs force the slide closed, stripping the next round off the magazine. 



Trigger actions vary; theres double/single where the first round is fired like a revolver. The subsequent rounds are single action, pulling the trigger just drops an already cocked hammer. This is because the slide moving back automatically cocks the weapon. Some autos are double action only. Each round fired is similar to a revolver (supposedly designed as a safety feature to present accidental discharge). Some autos, like the classic 1911 .45cal, are single action only. The weapon is carried in various ways but it must have the hammer cocked for the first shot. Pulling the trigger with the hammer down wont work. All these types of autos have safety levers that prevent moving the hammer when engaged. A few have half-**** safety features. Many have de-**** levers that safely drop a cocked hammer without firing so the next shot will be double action again. Some autos like the Glock, have a proprietary firing system that isnt single or double action (Glock calls it a safe action) pulling the trigger moves levers that release a spring loaded firing system. Glock handguns come with no safety levers. They are point and shoot. They do have a series of features that assure the weapon will only fire by pulling the trigger. You can drop it out of a plane and it wont go off accidentally.



*Advantage*: Ammo capacity. Ease of reloading. Can fire faster and more accurately with less training than a revolver. (yes a trained wheel gun man can match an auto, but it takes more practice)

*Disadvantages*: Prone to malfunction with improper shooting technique or maintenance. Untrained shooters may fumble with or forget to disengage safety levers.

*What this means to the martial artist*: Grab the slide before the weapons fired and it will fire; however it will most likely result in a jammed weapon (and probably cuts and burns to your hand). Like a revolver, block an exposed hammer (if it has one) and it wont fire. Move the slide portion of the weapon back far enough (out of battery) and it wont fire. Hit the magazine release button and he will only have the one shot in the gun.

****= I guess this board has auto-filters for commonly used vulgarities. The **** means setting the hammer into position, also slang for a mans genitalia. Odd. it will let me spell cocked, but not ****. How would I describe a male rooster???:idunno:


----------



## mandirigma (Feb 24, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> ...in light of my earlier statement of belief that MA is in a good postion to lead the "combatives" field...




I like and agree with this statement!

My contribution here is to comment on the value of arnis from the perspective of a root art.

In the past few years I have begun to think in terms of a "root art."  I.e.- the art that best fits one's overall interests and needs.  What a fantastic era to be a martialist!  Nowadays, we can learn from so many in so many ways.

I have become pretty entrenched in my belief that arnis is a good choice for a root art.  I came to arnis along a very circuitous route.  The knife and stick, to me, are simply modern day instantiations of what warriors were looking for in their farming implements long ago in Japan:  self-defense weapons that are concealable, work adequately, don't draw too much attention, and are accessible.

Arnis obviously has big gaps (from a purely SD slant), but it's pretty good!  I get to train my H2H so I can fight my way to my knife/stick, and I get to train my knife/stick so I can fight my way to my pistol.  That's quite a bit of coverage, really.  Also, arnis has less "stupid moves" than many systems.  Finally, I truly enjoy the concept of and emphasis on the Flow.

No perfect solutions, but a very reasonable compromise.

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 26, 2004)

Nice article by T.Blauer....on my "tactical" kick again. 

Note the relationship between conditioning,technical proficiency and tactical issues. What do you do to keep up on each??

http://www.policeone.com/policeone/frontend/parser.cfm?object=Columnists&tmpl=article&id=79778


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 27, 2004)

Good article

I still say that the conceptual approach of FMA's makes them just as complete as Mr. Blauer's system seems to be.  Concepts are just ideas, taken to the smallest or largest scales, it can be a complete system.

Paul M


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2004)

If MA was to be used as a "root" art for a combatives program, do you think there would there have to be any "re-tooling" of the system or would you just have to add on the elements that were missing? And would doing either be bad in terms of "system purity"?


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Mar 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If MA was to be used as a "root" art for a combatives program, do you think there would there have to be any "re-tooling" of the system or would you just have to add on the elements that were missing? And would doing either be bad in terms of "system purity"?




Actually it is. I would understand how some one might think it is missing some pieces. Modern Arnis is often taught as an accessory. When learning this way it is common to be missing pieces. I have taught Modern Arnis as a primary system for over 15 years and I find that it has everything that I need.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

Renegade said:
			
		

> Actually it is. I would understand how some one might think it is missing some pieces. Modern Arnis is often taught as an accessory. When learning this way it is common to be missing pieces. I have taught Modern Arnis as a primary system for over 15 years and I find that it has everything that I need.



Tim,
I am not sure what you are saying "it is" about because there are three questions in the quote you seemed to be responding to.  Could you clarify?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If MA was to be used as a "root" art for a combatives program, do you think there would there have to be any "re-tooling" of the system
> 
> I don't think so, because the concepts that drive the art allow for large as well as small scopes of consideration
> 
> ...



I don't think so because no MA, let alone an FMA is a pure system.  They are all composites of what came before.  If anything, I would think that some of the old raider/guerilla/scouts of WWII who worked with the allies would have a fairly limited list of 'fighting techniques' but a very comprehensive program of complete tactical skill that would make them very effective at choosing the right time to apply those techniques for success


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

Boy did I mess that up.  My comments are mixed into the quote block so sorry if it is confusing.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Mar 11, 2004)

*If MA was to be used as a "root" art for a combatives program*

Actually it is.

*do you think there would there have to be any "re-tooling" of the system or would you just have to add on the elements that were missing? * 

No, I would understand how some one might think it is missing some pieces. Modern Arnis is often taught as an accessory. When learning this way it is common to be missing pieces. I have taught Modern Arnis as a primary system for over 15 years and I find that it has everything that I need.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

Renegade said:
			
		

> *If MA was to be used as a "root" art for a combatives program*
> 
> Actually it is.
> 
> ...



Clears up the first two for me, thanks.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Mar 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Clears up the first two for me, thanks.



No Problem. :asian:


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Mar 11, 2004)

I look at Modern Arnis as learning a math formula. Even thogh the values change the formula is the same.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

Renegade said:
			
		

> I look at Modern Arnis as learning a math formula. Even thogh the values change the formula is the same.



Again, the power of MA/FMA is the conceptually driven training.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 11, 2004)

I think that if MA (as a whole) dosent start presenting itself as a "whole art" and not just a "stick and knife club" then it will be used as an "add on" to combatives programs. Like the way some special forces/LEO groups use it for knife disarms etc., but go to other arts for groundfighting , unarmed fighting etc.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Mar 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think that if MA (as a whole) dosent start presenting itself as a "whole art" and not just a "stick and knife club" then it will be used as an "add on" to combatives programs. Like the way some special forces/LEO groups use it for knife disarms etc., but go to other arts for groundfighting , unarmed fighting etc.




We at the WMAA do present it as a *COMPLETE* system. Unfortunatly not many people learned it that way. :asian:


----------



## Rocky (Mar 11, 2004)

TGrace Wrote:



> If MA was to be used as a "root" art for a combatives program, do you think there would there have to be any "re-tooling" of the system or would you just have to add on the elements that were missing? And would doing either be bad in terms of "system purity"?



 the term system purity when talking about MA is an oxy moron I beleive. MA is a modern art, a modern art can not be pure, if it were pure it would be a classical art more like Anciong's Balintawak. MA Arnis the way I was taught is very simular to JKD if it works it works. We use to have some very very good MA players years ago, Eli Cobb (sp) comes to mind a MA guy who use to go under cover in prisons to catch bad guy inmates and guards, needless to say his ***** had better been combative, I remember he got started at Rmey's 2nd camp because he was drawn to the effectiveness of the weaponed hand and the fact that it could adapt to vertually any weapon especially the creative ones often made by inmates. MA has always had this bad rapp of being an add on art, because Remy wanted to give people what they wanted. It is very hard for an man even as great as the Professor was to tell people do what I teach and you won't need your other arts. Remember MA is still a new comer to the arts in the U.S and the arts predating it were heavely rooted in the militaristic form of training, and very close minded so Remy had an up hill battle. All in all I think the art is fairly complete when taught properly and of course being a MODERN art various people will have their own concept of how and what to teach in their Modern Arnis mine is much different than most out their, of course I will be one sided to it, but when you get down to it its no better than everyone else's version, it what you put into it that counts.

 From the book of Rock " Teach a man to block he will learn the technique"
Smash the man first, then teach him how to block, he will appreciate the
technique.

Rocky


----------



## Tgace (Mar 11, 2004)

Interesting...with that approach, can there really be any arguement over who has the "authentic" MA or who is "purist"?

In my little mental model, I see a "combatives" program being rooted in 3 foundations:
1.Physical Conditioning:Either a PT component to the class itself, or an expectation of meeting a PT standard. (similar to military testing)
2.Technical Training: The "martial art". Training in the physical techniques of fighting.
3.Tactical Proficiency: Placing 1+2 into some form of context where "realistic" scenarios can instill tactical principals.


----------

