# Two gun shooting anyone? Benefits?



## AzQkr (Jul 30, 2006)

One in each hand simultaneously.

You'll need to learn how to use the enhanced peripheral vision technique  that I developed around 1993.

The link takes you to reviews/comments on students who have been shown this in the Integrated Threat Focused Training Systems courses.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/...light=enhanced

 Post #'s ---     5, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20

Benefits? 

You can shoot as easily and with consierable accuracy with your weak/non dominant side in a few hours of training. 

You can use the ability you have, and most do not know how to use, to "see" without direct visual focus. Catch something that's a threat in your peripheral vision? You can hit it without looking at it immediately.

One of the students was 10 feet from two steel plates, which were placed 10 feet apart, and shot in near total darkness in the middle of the desert with me last month. First time up after just listening to me tell him "how to" do it, he was 5 for 6 with double glocks. Thats 86+% hits on the first try in near total darkness.

Brownie


----------



## arnisandyz (Aug 1, 2006)

Interesting...but what about the drawbacks?

The more bullets fired the more bullets you're responsible for. If you're using peripheral vision then your vision isn't focused on any one threat...you're picking up an image in your peripheral and blasting away without positive identification...could be little Sally eating an ice cream cone or someone coming up to your for the time.

Maybe you can do it, but I find it hard to believe someone with average skill and a few lessons can effectively use 2 guns in a defensive situation 
AND do it responsibly. Its hard enough to get them to use ONE properly. No disrespect, but until you can prove otherwise, I see it as a parlor trick of the day. I have no doubt that you could run down the middle of a lane with each hand pointing in opposite directions and hit targets, but what if you mix in some no shoots randomly down that same line? Will the shooter have enough input to make that decision to pull the trigger or not?

I guess my point is that I'd rather verify the threat before pulling the trigger.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 1, 2006)

arnisandyz;

This would not be used unless the threats had been ID'd already. Irresponsibly shooting at unverified threats with one gun using direct vision would be the same, of course.

It has limited applications, but applications nonetheless in certain situations IF you carry two guns, IF you know how to use them with enhanced peripheral vision simultaneously, and IF the SD distances are optimal.

I can think of several scenarios where the threats have been ID'd BEFORE one draws to fire in SD, in fact most SD shootings, the threat/s have been ID'd before drawing your own weapon. Did you think I was talking about randomly drawing two guns in a potential SD situation before the threats/s had been verified for some reason?

You also do not have to fire on the threats, but could hold one on each quite well. Can you cover two potential threats with one gun? I can't. Can you look at two threats at the same time with one gun? I can't.

You can "see" two simultaneous threats if you know how to develop and enhance your peripheral vision however. You can also put two guns on twoi threats at the same time with the same skills.

If you read the posts on the link, people have picked this up in minutes, not hours or days. I've done the R+D to develop the technique for those interested in having the skills this brings. It took some time to develop, and once the key was found to unlock the natural potential in all of us to use the enhanced peripheral vision, it became childs play, and the students being able to repeat the skills immediately proves the key does unlock this door.

I did not suggest anyone could use this in a defensive situation. I simply stated they can be trained to use this technique. I know of many people who have been trained in one technique or another who couldn't use the skills in a self defense situation. Whether one can use anything taught them will depend on that individuals mindset, makeup and level of practice so that the confidence to use the skills won't let them hesitate at the moment of truth.

I prove it in the students reviews and comments who have posted their successes with this almost from the first magazine in minutes. Whether you believe it can be done or not, can be trained in people in short time spans or not, or could be used successfully on the streets or not is not something I can't change unless you take the time to see for yourself. 

The rewards are many. People learn to use their offside hand very quickly, learn to shoot one handed accurately, learn their full natural potential through this technique.

Is it a parlor trick? It sure is if you can't repeat the same thing yourself becuase you lack the knowledge of "how to" do something others can. Thats what parlor tricks are by their very nature. However, when the student can do the same thing in minutes, their minds wrap around the idea that they suddenly are capable of something they never thought possible from anyone, let alone themselves. The lights come on, and they realize their full natural abilities. 

It's not difficult, but you have to hold the key to be able to unlock the door, just like anything in life. I hold the key to that door and train others by giving them the key, they themselves unlock the door with their own newfound abilities.

Brownie


----------



## arnisandyz (Aug 1, 2006)

My post was not to question your methodology, but to determine how valid this would be in defensive situation...for me. You listed the benifits, I listed possible drawbacks. Running down the line KNOWING your suppose to shoot everything is different from making real-world decisions real-time. Why would I want to develop this skill if I feel it has limited real-world application or worse, carries the liablity factor with it?

Thanks for the reply Mr Brownie and best of luck in your quest. As for me...I hold the key as well, it's just to a different door.

Peace.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 1, 2006)

arnisandyz;
_Running down the line KNOWING your suppose to shoot everything is different from making real-world decisions real-time. 

_Twice you have mentioned running down the line in your posts. Not sure what scenario you might be thinking of, but having worked the streets for 28 years armed, meeting up with BG who needed to be dealt with, I've never seen or heard of anyone "_Running down the line"_ with a handgun in a SD shooting.

_Why would I want to develop this skill if I feel it has limited real-world application or worse, carries the liablity factor with it?

_Why would anyone want to learn the higher levels of sword play, or the knife, or boxing, the double sticks or H2H techniques? It's not any different than any of the above with any weapons platform sir.

Higher knowledge of understanding with any weapons platforms and the pursuit of all you can be is the answer. There are those who understand that though they may never have to use the Arnis or Kali sticks, they train them in those platforms just the same till the weapon becomes one with the user. Till it's not foreign to them, and they are comfortable to extreme with that particular weapon. No more or less.

_I hold the key as well, it's just to a different door.

_One should endeavor to hold as many keys to as many doors as they can if their life depends on such things on the streets. There are many doors to unlock in the world. 

One key to one door does not solve every problem, therefore I'm more comfortable with as many keys as I can obtain, particularly with chosen weapons platforms. 

I've trained in defensive knife for years, though the chance of having to use that which I carry daily is slim at best. That did not preclude my training in that weapon system to a high level of skill, nor learning double knife skills.

I've trained in stick for years, though the chance of my having to use that training on the street is slim as well. In fact, having worked the street, as I mentioned before for almost 30 years, I never once had to use my knife, or the stick, but I trained them nonetheless.

Ones education never stops, there is always something to be learned. Not just something with an inanimate object like the stick, knife or gun, but something of yourself and your true abilities with the tools at the higher levels.

Will I ever have to shoot behind my back without turning to face the threat? It hasn't happened in 30 years working the streets. Yet, I practice that technique and hold that key as well. It's all just an ongoing quest to understand the weapons potential and more importantly, my own potential with the weapon I have with me at the time.

If my thought process was that I would only train for that which had no limited application, I may never have learned made the effort to train in the weapons I have trained in. The chance of being involved in a SD situation with a gun is slim to none statistically, yet I still carry one daily, and train to use it to my and it's full potential.

The chances of getting into a knife fight where I need that weapon are slim and none as well statistically, yet I train to the higher levels of that tool as well and carry one daily.

Carrying a gun is a liability to begin with. If one is unprepared to take on that liability, one should not carry or use that tool to beign with, afterall, if you don't have a gun, you can never miss and hit an innocent right?

Brownie


----------



## arnisandyz (Aug 1, 2006)

AzQkr said:
			
		

> arnisandyz;
> [/I]Twice you have mentioned running down the line in your posts. Not sure what scenario you might be thinking of, but having worked the streets for 28 years armed, meeting up with BG who needed to be dealt with, I've never seen or heard of anyone "_Running down the line"_ with a handgun in a SD shooting.
> 
> Sorry, maybe you can be more specific on your drill. I assumed you were running this scenereo as a live fire drill. Are you standing with guns drawn at the low ready? If I'm facing multiple BGs that require me to use multiple weapons I sure as hell am not standing still. Whether I move down the line to split the BGs, shooting on the move to cover or move laterally to line them up. I'm moving. Are you advocating standing your ground as you engage the targets? From your knowledge of double stick and knife fighting you already know footwork and working the angles are the keys to largo mano. Movement also adressess your other question...
> ...


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 1, 2006)

Andy,

There's a time to be moving and there's a time to stand and deliver. Both have there place in the training environment and streets.

Guys like Bill Jordan, Jelly Bryce, Bill Fairbairn, Sykes and Col. Askins all made a hell of a living killing men in the stand and deliver types of shooting. They were modern day killers without peers in their day. Most were hip or close to hip shooters never bothering to bring the gun anywhere near line of sight [ eye level ].

There's also a time to be moving out of the kill zone, off the BG's centerline while drawing and shooting. The probem most have with moving and shooting is their hits fall far below the norm which for most is low to begin with when the adrenaline dumps.

Integrated Threat Focus Training Systems trains people in both methodologies. WW2 FAS type shooting from the hip, and 3/4 hip as well as from below eye level [ around the nose to mouth level ] with the Quick Kill techniqes I'm trained in specifically.

I can't say if I'll move and shoot in any particular given situation as there are too many variables that are unknowns. I also can't say I'll stand and deliver for the same reason.

I'll likely be using one gun, thats usually all I carry now. In the past, when working assignments on protection details, I did carry two [ usually identical gov45's ]. One crossdraw and the other strongside. Each had their strengths [ like the crossdraw for entering and exiting vehicles or while seated ]. The crossdraw could be drawn with the left hand [ I shoot right handed normally ], but am actually ambidextrous for most everything.

The enhanced peripheral 2 gun shooting is not on the move, it is specifically for stand and deliver, at least initially. Nothing in stone that says once one is started, it won't go to moving sometime after the initiation of the actions.

The technqiue is for those times you may be confronted with multiple adversaries, the action is anyhwere from 6 to maybe 20 feet, or when a group of people start trying to circle in behind your six while others are keeping you busy and distracted. If the disparity of force and other criteria for self defense [ use of deadly force ] presents itself, knowing you can use both at out to 65 degrees [ thats about max for me ] on either side simultaneously might be something useful to own. Other scenarios/situations could come up where while firing with one, I'd draw the second gun on another threat that presents from the other side, as I can take two at the same time which is going to be faster than boarding house rules of one each and returning to the first one, and somewhat safer in the long run if you have the ability to use this.

Zoning is a theory that can work, and may not like anything else in a rapidly changing environ. Zoning against non projectile weapons is, IMO, much more succesful than against multiples with guns unless one or more are very close. Zoning also requires being able to put rounds reliably on threats that are tracking/moving while you are moving. It is very doable, but will require the shooter to have some very good skills, skills which most do not possess nor practice due to swaure range rules.

I'm fortunate here in the desert as at times, I can shoot almost in a 360 arc, and am not limited to square ranges. One of our drills developed for classes is called "Sprint and Hits". Using one gun, from 6-10 feet starting against an adversary drawing on you, you literally sprint out at a 45 degree arc on either side and away. Hits are over 90% on these drills on almost a flat out run to a rear oblique. One side will be shooting one handed, the other two hands initially. 

While moving out of the kill zone ans shooting one, another threat can present from an angle that would allow the second gun to be drawn and fired simultaneously. In that case, one would be going from peripheral vision shooting [ threat focused ], on one to the enhanced mode of peripheral vision and shooting two.

The transition is something people need to play with, and is not something we take the time in classes to get people to run in drills. We train techniques covering elbow/up/elbow down from the hip, the zipper, the hammer, all one handed for anything that needs fast shots on open close targets.

We also train techniques that require you to move and shoot from the same situation as well as techniques for times the distances are somewhat past 8-12 feet. These would be Quick Fire, Quick Kill, and use of sights as time, size of threat shown and distances permit.

The technqiues can be run together in any order, used individually or as stand alone, giving the shooter/student many options at their disposal based on what they feel is required at the time and the training they have but most importantly, theor confidence in making the shots no matter what techniques they choose to use.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=393

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223

These links will take your to reviews of the techniques and the students thoughts on the courses ITFTS offers the shooting public. In the reviews, you note that not one is using their sights at some pretty far targets with a minimal of training. 

How the students then run those technqiues together or use them individually, whether the moving side of tthings or the stand and deliver side is up to them to decide at the moment of truth.

Our job is to make sure the students have the confidence in their ability to make hits, on the move, standing, from bad breath out to considerable distances as the situations dictate. Some tactics mindset is covered as to why a certain technique would be included in the course at times, and at other times, it is pure skills training. 

It is up to each student to then take what they have learned and apply it on the streets as they deem necessary. Not all of the techniques will ever be used, but they are in the bag of tricks [ sorta speak ], if they should find they ever do need them.

As I mentioned, I also shoot behind my back out to 10 feet with direct center hits 100% of the time and have since developing that technique back around 93 or so. I don't ever expect to have to use it, but it's there nonetheless.

My thought on training others mirrors the mentors I had back in the day. That to give the people real skills, useable skills, the confidence that comes with knowing these skills are there for them, and let the students go forth and then determine which ones they will use at the moment of truth if it comes to pass they are that unfortunate.

One of the adjunct rewards to the 2 gun technique which has to be used with enhanced peripheral vision [ EPV ] skills is that the even with one gun, you could peripherally"see" someone to your oblique appear and that is totally opposite most who will be tunnel visioned on the known threat in front of them.

Any exercise that can keep you from directly focusing on a known threat and tunnel visioning is a benefit in these events. The EPV helps you even when you are using one gun in ways most will not imagine possible until they have taken the time to learn how their natural abilities can be enhanced with little to no effort. I've already done the work, the hard part, and this skill is actually very easy to own.

Brownie


----------



## arnisandyz (Aug 1, 2006)

Thanks,

Do you sell any training videos or is it specifically private classes?, not so much 2 pistol shooting, but more in line with the target focus point shooting. I do use this type of focus in competition (IDPA/IPSC) shooting when the course dictates it. I feel comfortable out to about 21 feet using this focus but would like to expand that if possible. It is faster and more instinctive on the close range stuff than front sight focus. I was looking on your site at that 1911 with no sights, very interesting.

Andy


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 1, 2006)

I don't have training vids out presently Andy. I only recently started this ITFTS venture last year and the courses are on the road as interest in an area is expressed or one on one with me here in the desert.

I've been asked to write a book on the pistol QK threat focused methodology [ I own the registered copyright to that technique ] which I have started. The primary goal is to get the skills into the hands of those who may need them, or just want them like the man who's going to be here for two days mid august with me one on one.

We have a course schedules for mid Oct in Knoxville, and another whose dates are not set yet for the fall in Pa again. Houston is a possible at this point as well as Mass. or NH in the spring. 

Some get the one on one, then get into a class on the road later like RJS has done. I won't release a book or video until it well thought out and produced professionally. I' not of the mindset to just "sell" something, but more of the mindset to make sure whatever is released is the best I can put out there in content and techniques.

Some will get a class going in their area and sponsor the class, getting the training for free in doing so.

Brownie


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 1, 2006)

Would it be posible for you to give us a quick synopsis about your Quick Kill methodology?  Perhaps comparing it to other target focused or point shooting systems?

Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 1, 2006)

Sure thing Jeff,

Here's the link to the narrative of:
Handgun or Pistol Quick Kill [ QK ] Shooting Technique © TM

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46

Brownie


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Aug 1, 2006)

I've read through this and a few other threads with interest, as separating Hollywood and Reality is a hobby of mine. I have to ask a few simple questions however. One actually. 

What are your intentions?

A number of your posts read to me like marketing, and with the large number of links you are posting to another forum, one might get the impression that you are only here to market a program or forum, not really dig in and contribute here.  If that is in fact the case, I will advise you that many here take a dim view to spammers, and a dimmer one to the "covert" spammers.  If you are here to market, you need to discuss advertising rates and terms with the balding guy who owns the site.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 1, 2006)

A couple of things,

Thanks for link detailing the history of what you are doing.  

It was kind of informative, but really didn't make me think what you are teaching is anything different from what others do.

Secondly, I have to agree with Edmund.  Many of your posts seem more like infomercials than invitations to conversation.  

Jeff


----------



## Carol (Aug 1, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> A couple of things,
> 
> Thanks for link detailing the history of what you are doing.
> 
> ...


 
I agree.  Conversation is to me is an exchange of ideas, where this has all been pretty much one-sided.  But what do I know :idunno:

Although I prefer to think of Bob as _shaven _rather than _balding _ he has some quite affordable rates to promote your ideas.  MartialTalk offers a sponsored forum for anyone to talk and promote whatever they like.    You sound like you have quite a bit to talk about and promote, Mr. Brown.   I bet Bob would be very interested at having you on board as a forum sponsor.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 1, 2006)

First,
I posted on an enhanced peripheral skill, and answered anothers specific concerns about that specific skill in replies.

I supplied links as a way of not having to rewrite narrative which has already been published.

In answering anothers questions, did it not create dialogue and discussion on a specific subject? That of enhanced peripheral vision and the specific technique which get people to that that skill?

Exchange of ideas and information, is that not what forums are for? 

Jeff, specific reference points used in the skills talked about are not used by anyone else in the training community. Those very reference points make it unique in nature and seperate it from others trainings regimen.

Others certianly train people in threat focused skills, FAS, Quick Fire, Elbow up/ Elbow down etc. Some of the training is very unique and portions are well known through writings by Applegate, Fairbairn and Sykes from the ww2 era.

Enahnced peripheral vision can be used with many forms of things martial, it just so happens these skills are used by myself in the form of firearms training. It could also be exended to that of double stick and sword or any number of two handed weapons skills.

I wondered why the thread was locked to begin with, now I understand why. Do others promote their own style of training, exhange ideas of various techniques here? I was under the impression thats what this forum was about. 

If I've made a mistake in judgement as to the purpose of the forum, my apologies for assuming there wasa firearms section here for the very specific purpose of exchange of ideas, techniques and the accompanying discussion relative their benefits.

btw- I would not presume to speak in other subforums about things I don't train in and can't speak intelligently about. The subject of firearms is a subject I know quite a bit about. I presumed people here would be interested in matters of training with firearms. The post was simple in its intent. Bring discussion about something very few know anything about, to enlighten in matters I can speak intellgently about and just perhaps to get people to think there is more than meets the eye where this form of martial training is concerned.

Brownie


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 2, 2006)

I'll just throw this out for the membersip as well. The idea of Proprioception is not new, nor something not medically understood and proven. It is one of the research projects which has led to understanding the bodies function and why we are capable of things we don't know we are capable of. It's not well known in the training communities for the most part but it does support the idea of this thread.
_____________________________________________________________

Proprioception: how and why?

There are five common senses that are discussed and learned from an early age: sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. The I-function, the conscious part of the brain, is very aware of these senses. It voluntarily checks information obtained by these senses in order to experience the environment, and also when a strong enough stimuli has signaled attention to these specific receptors. There are other equally important sensory systems set up that are essential for normal body functioning, but these are not so easily recognized by the I-function because the nervous system keeps the input unconscious. 

The paper by Shannon Lee on this subject and which the above is an excerpt, can be found here:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neur...web2/slee.html

Brownie


----------



## Carol (Aug 2, 2006)

It may help to take a look at the rules
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=141& 

Personally, I'd seriously recommend sending a private message to Bob Hubbard, who is the site's owner.  He's a good guy and can talk to you more about setting up your own forum so you can promote all your techniques and your ideas.  I've talked to him about plans of my own, he's well worth the time and money.  IMO, you'd reach a good audience here on MT and would be able to promote yourself to a great audience that would be quite receptive to your ventures.  Plus, you get to support a great martial arts community in the process.  Win win all around!


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 2, 2006)

_Website links of a resource, historical or technical nature are permitted in the art specific fora, as well as the "Whats New" forum.
    - Linking to articles or information is permitted, provided the site being linked too allows it.

_I've met this rule, the links provided so far in this thread were to information that was requested or in support of the posts.

_Seminar, Camp and event notifications, reports and reviews are both allowed and encouraged!

_The links seem to have met this rule as well as they were to reviews of the subject either asked for or in support of the posts.

_Linking to articles on other forums -is- permitted.

_The links provided seem to meet this rule as well.

Brownie


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 2, 2006)

Yeah, it's generally not kewl to just link to your own forum as a substitution for quality conversation in another forum ... nettiquette, ya know.

So I read - very briefly, I admit - on your peripheral training and it's identical to some visual therapy techniques I learned.  

May I ask which branch of the military you served in?

thanks.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 2, 2006)

Jarhead, 69-71 4/11 and 3/12

You're welcome

Brownie


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Aug 2, 2006)

Original article is here: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web2/slee.html

While a very interesting read, especially when intact with the full references included, the posting of the article violates the "Fair Use" clause of Copyright, and this sites rules. Unless the article is public domain or under something like OpenDoc, GPL or similar licences?


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 2, 2006)

The article was taken from the net, I believe thats public domain and credit of the author was given in the posting.

Brownie


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Aug 2, 2006)

AzQkr said:
			
		

> The article was taken from the net, I believe thats public domain and credit of the author was given in the posting.
> 
> Brownie


At the bottom of the source page, there is a little copyright symbol.  Just because it's on the net, doesn't make it public domain.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Aug 2, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> At the bottom of the source page, there is a little copyright symbol.  Just because it's on the net, doesn't make it public domain.





			
				MartialTalk Rules said:
			
		

> *Copyrighted Material/Content Policy:*
> Don't Republish Copyrighted Information
> 
> Information copyrighted or owned by any individual or entity other than the member should not be posted on the discussion forums or software libraries without the consent of the owner. Exceptions to this standard are covered by the Federal law regarding fair use, 17 USCS 107, and related case law, which holds that only partial excerpts of copyrighted material may be reproduced, and only as necessary for criticism or comment.
> ...



I think you are not in compliance.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 2, 2006)

Edmund;

I edited the post, to reflect part of the article as an excerpt with the accompanying link.

Happy?

Brownie


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 2, 2006)

*Moderator Note:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful and familiarize yourself with the RTM button.  It is the red bordered white triangle in the upper right hand corner of each post.

If you think a rule has been violated, please feel free to go to that post and use the RTM feature.  NOTE:  ANY USER CAN RTM A "BAD" (i.e. rule-breaking) POST.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Aug 2, 2006)

Me, Happy?

:rofl: :lfao: :lool: 

You must be new here.

:wavey:

ok, back to :2pistols: cuz I have some serious :burp: to do tonight.
Helps me aim :snipe:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2006)

Welcome Mr. Brown!

While you might have some trouble  with others because of your introduction, or lack thereof (and I suggest that you do make one in the appropriate forum, with some sort of bio) I recognize a student of Mitchell Werbell: one time OSS agent, "Wizard of Whispering Death," co-developer of the Ingram M-10-or, at least the developer of its infamous silencer, as what could become a valued resource in the firearms forum-Werbell's politics aside....


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 2, 2006)

elder999,

My first post was in the introduction forum, under "Hola from Arizona".

Mitch owned the Military Armament Corp [ MAC ] out of Powder Springs, Ga.
which developed the Mac series of M-10, M11's and helped develop the Sionics Suppresor with Mr. Gordon Ingram. 

I trained at Sionics, an acronym for  [ Studies in Organized Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion ] with some interesting people in 81 under Mitch and cadre some 10 years after leaving the Corps.

To say he was controversial is an understatement. 

Thank you for the welcome sir.

Brownie


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 3, 2006)

Wow.....long thread....haven't read it in it's entirety yet to really weigh in here, but I'll state a couple of ideas...

I could have more academic sources, btw; but I am limited to net sources because I am not giving you guys access to my academic library accounts 

1. Learning to shoot 2 guns simultaneously in minutes is believable for a number of reasons; you are using the mind/hands natural abilities to "point," and you are using your peripheral vision which is designed to detect shape and movement. In theory it should be actually easier to do this in the dark because you use your "rods" (outer eye; in charge of peripheral vision, depth perception, and shape/space detection, all things important for night vision) which is what allows you to see in the dark AND use your peripherals rather then your "cones" (the inner eye that is centrally focused and allows you to do detail work like reading, and detects colors, textures, etc.) which is primarily not used at night. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html

Your "Rods" are what you should be using under stress in a fight to visually perceive what is going on around you. Unfortunately, because we are no longer "cave men," most people have poorly developed use of their rods as well as functioning under combat stress, which is why focus can be "tunneled" when operating with the SNS in a fight to using cones and focusing on the attackers weapon or hands to the exclusion of everything else, for instance. More research needs to be done on the biology of the visual process as it relates to the SNS. 

The good news is that we can develop use of our peripherals through attribute focused exercises designed exclusively to develop the peripherals, or task specific things like operating at night or in the dark without artificial lighting, or doing physical activities that would require the use of our peripherals (like sparring or football for example). Once again, though, more emperical research needs to be done to determine the usuefullness of peripheral development and visual function through the SNS.

Then there is the natural ability to point accurately at a target that we all have, which is essentially a core aspect of how unsighted fire works. Focusing on the target rather then trying to split focus between weapon (sights) and target has been done since man has been chucking projectiles. Even sport clay shooting folks know the value of being target focused (see tip # 5): http://www.americaoutdoors.com/shooting/features/ten_tips.htm

That leaves the aspect of "two guns," meaning being able to split your mind body coordination between left/right brain function. This is not to suggest exclusivity or specificity in function (meaning that being right handed doesn't mean left-brain dominant or vice versa), but physical function is correlated to hemisphere activity. I am fairly ambidextrous and I shoot fine with both sides (but tend to do slightly better on my right probably because I am right eye dominant). But for the beginner, I am sure that they would have to learn to shoot 1 handed on both dominant and non-dominant sides before trying a 2 guns at one feat.  I am sure that those of you who train equally on both sides should have no problems with assimilating this skill.  Side note: If your having trouble with using your non-dominant side, and if your really bored, learn to juggle with your eyes closed (even if it is just with 1 or two balls).  Sounds stupid, but some NLP Psychologists believe that this helps unify your right/left brain, coordinates your hand/eye in both dominant and non-dominant sides, and has therapeutic effects life reducing maladaptive responses such as panic and anxiety. But that is worth a separate discussion. I digress....you could just cut to the chase and shoot with your non-dominant hand more often...  

When you put it all together, this leaves the possibility of one learning "two handed shooting" fairly quickly.  Because I like to mess around with different things, I have done this myself with my BB and airsoft guns. I can attest that it isn't as hard as it sounds when you can tap into your natural ability to use your peripherals, naturally point at your target, and split your activity between your right/left side.

2.  I question the value of this as a usable method in a defensive situation, however. Such a skill could be useful in an extremely task specific situation, but I can't see how this would be common as it pertains to most defensive shootings.  Particularly problematic is that when one is operating with the SNS, one has a difficult time splitting focus physically speaking and between both brain hemispheres.  This is why the "pull push" modified weaver often fails under stress, among other things. People are also threat focused under stress; there is the propensity of focusing on the NEAREST/MOST DANGEROUS THREAT until that threat is no longer present.  This idea of splitting focus between two hands and multiple threats simultaneously would most likely fail in an actual gun fight. Then there is the issue of thread ID, but lets assume that we have identified our threats previously, for arguments sake.

All and all, this seems like a skill that would work in practice, particularly on stationary targets, but would fall apart in an actual fight. The best way to test this would be to run airsoft or simunition scenarios; so far in the scenario's I have seen/experienced, the person tends to focus on the threat nearest/most threatening  until that threat is no longer present, every time, and doesn't split focus.  Current data supports that splitting focus isn't going to happened when operating with the SNS.  I will admit that in these scenarios participants haven't necessarily been trained to use peripherals, and haven't been trying to use more then one weapon simultaneously; so my statement is just a hypothesis and more research would have to be done to verify the idea. But I certainly wouldn't be teaching this method in a defensive shooting course until it could be verified as reliable. On biopsychology and SNS: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/brain.html; On SNS response: http://www.gsgi.org/combat_stress.htm 

3.  So, yes I do have doubts to the validity of such a method once combat stress enters the picture. But does that mean that it wouldn't be a valuable skill to learn?

I will say that I am happy that I have picked up two guns and shot targets simultaneously to learn these skills. If anything, these have been both therapeutic and attribute building exercises. Plus, it's a lot of fun! I say do it if it is enjoyable and if it floats your boat. 


SOOOO....

That's my take on this discussion. Hopefully there is something valuable there.  I'll finish reading the thread, then I will probably crawl into my hole for another week or so (been real busy). So no offense if I don't respond to people right away.  I will state that when given the opportunity, hopefully over the next year or two, I would like to put the issue of peripheral development and combat stress to more empirical university studies. Time will tell...



Paul Janulis


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 3, 2006)

I knew I'd post one more time before I logged off....

1. Not an entirely bad op ed on Proprioception; although I am not in full agreement with her inferences regarding unconcious and consious mind, it was a decent overview of the idea. The notion is in part why humans have a natural propensity to "point."

2.  I am thinking that ya'll should lay off Mr. Brown regarding the "self-promotion" issue. He is providing content here that hasn't been here for a long time. Yes it is evident that he is promoting his programs, but he is not doing so in a shameless way that I can see. I am seeing a hell of a lot of text provided here by him so far, so I don't think it is fair to be blaming him for violating ad policies and such when he is providing a discussion about these ideas as far as I can tell.

I go sleepy now; good night.

:burp:


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 3, 2006)

One more reply, then I am stopping I swear. (If I start quoting and replying specifically to myself, please call to have me committed again...  )

Just wanted to clarify (and because of some of the negativity on this thread that I don't want to propigate, I feel I need too) that just because I question the utility of the said method, and said I wouldn't include it in a defensive shooting program meaning a CPL class or basic gunfighting or advanced gunfighting class geared towards self-defense, that doesn't mean that there isn't value in going to learn something like that.

Firearms schools (frontsite, gunsite, blackwater, etc.) offer plenty of courses that you probably won't need; how many private citizens need to know how to repel from buildings, use group room clearing tactics, or shoot from up in trees? Yet people take these courses because they help them in other aspects of life, and there a hella good time.

It's no different then learning traditional stick fighting, or fencing for example, at least in my opinion. If I teach and advocate one, then I have to be O.K. with the other.

I feel that I have a professional duty to express the utility of a skill/training method when giving my opinion on the subject because lets face it, the gal getting her CPL to defend against a potential attack from a stalker doesn't need to be repeling from buildings or shooting with 2 guns at the same time.

But utility and value aren't the same thing; if someone wants to learn such skills because they are valuable to them, then I say go to a good instructor and have fun!

Paul


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 3, 2006)

Hi Paul,

I think your posts on the subject are correct in their thought process in several ways. This particular technique gets people to develop/train their peripheral vision skills. 

Peripheral vision and it's benefits is often times overlooked by too many in different situations. Developing and enhancing the peripheral vision is simply another exercise that may become important to people at various times.

I've also seen students who don't necessarily hone or work on their off hand skills with a firearm quickly be able to hit threats COM one handed solely based on their being given the key to this technique. How many actually practice off hand shooting enough, let alone one handed off hand reactive practice? Their proficiency with the "other" hand is increased a lot in short periods of time.

Just to be clear, the ITFTS courses do not cover this particular technique until the very end of the two day schedule, and only then to those who want to try it. The thing is, not one student has declined to try it or been unsuccesful in this once instructed how to do so.

There's simply too much material to cover in two days that is critical to SD first. Most two day courses cover anywhere from 12-18 techniques. The double handgun is thrown in at the end to expose the students to an ability they never thought they could possess. It opens doors for them to further explore other possibilities and keep an open mind.

The other benefit of enhanced peripheral training thats become obvious to us is while using one gun. The two gun gets students to see how to use something, it does not have to mean they need two guns in their hands after that.

Stay sharp out there

Brownie


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 3, 2006)

It does sound like loads of fun.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 3, 2006)

Combat stress and the physiological reactions that come with it will make all that "parlor trick" 2 hand gunfighting stuff useless IMHO. Spend your extra time doing the basics unless you want to join the circus.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka;

Thank you for your opinion. Basics? If you don't have them ingrained presently, your advice is certainly sound. 

Basics--handhold, trigger control, sight alignment, breathing

"Basics" doesn't cover threat focused skills, nor shooting while moving or at moving threats. All skills that go beyond the "basics", yet are still more than useful and extremely important to the ccw carrier who may find themselves involved in a SD situation requiring the use of a firearm on the streets.

Basics is what you get with a typical NRA course, or a "handgun 101" course. People training with us usually are well past having to practice the "basics", and are looking for the more advanced training offered by quite a few out there in one form or another.

If I might ask, what length of time have you been studying the effects of Combat stress and the physiological reactions? How much time have you spent researching this subject personally and more importantly, perhaps, what experiences, if any, do you have in combat stress?

But again, thanks for your opinion. 

Brownie


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 3, 2006)

Anything that pushes your skill level or skill sets can be a good thing. Of course you shouldn't ignore the basics, you should always be at least maintaining them, if not trying to raise your proficiency at them.  But to only concentrate on the basics of shooting would be like a TKD stylist only practicing Chon Ji.

Jeff


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 4, 2006)

To paraphrase Louis Awerbuck, there's no such thing as an advanced gunfight, as they're all pretty basic: shoot him first and hit him properly so he doesn't shoot back. Good shooting always comes back to the basics.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 4, 2006)

If you think you have "mastered" the basics -and I would add in weapon manipulation, malfunction clearing, reloading, drawing and holstering as "basics"- then do them faster, do them one handed, do them under pressure. Dont waste your time doing "matrix" stunts. IMO the tactical industry is all about reinventing the wheel -or digging up some forgotten techniques that are so old they are new again- to keep on selling those seminars. But im a duffer so what do I know?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 4, 2006)

> "The most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting -- grandstand play -- as I would poison."





> "When I say that I learned to take my time in a gunfight, I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss. It is hard to make this clear to a man who has never been in a gunfight. Perhaps I can best describe such time taking as going into action with the greatest speed of which a man's muscles are capable, but mentally unflustered by an urge to hurry or the need for complicated nervous and muscular actions which trick-shooting involves. Mentally deliberate, but muscularly faster than thought, is what I mean."





> "That two-gun business is another matter that can stand some truth before the last of the old-time gunfighters has gone on. They wore two guns, most of six-gun toters did, and when the time came for action went after them with both hands. But they didn't shoot them that way."





> "Primarily, two guns made the threat of something in reserve; they were useful as a display of force when a lone man stacked up against a crowd. Some men could shoot equally well with either hand, and in a gunplay might alternate their fire; others exhausted the loads from the gun on the right, or the left, as the case might be, then shifted the reserve weapon to the natural shooting hand if that was necessary and possible. Such a move -- the border shift -- could be made faster than the eye could follow a top-notch gun-thrower, but if the man was as good as that, the shift would seldom be required."





> "Whenever you see a picture of some two-gun man in action with both weapons held closely against his hips and both spitting smoke together, you can put it down that you are looking at the picture of a fool, or a fake. I remeber quite a few of these so-called two-gun men who tried to operate everything at once, but like the fanners, they didn't last long in proficient company."




Exerpts from "Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshall" by Stuart N. Lake


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 4, 2006)

Blotan,

Once again, thanks for your opinions, and those of Mr. Earp.

If you are missing, slow down, if you are not missing, you are doing well at the speed you are at. His comment that "I do not wish to be misunderstood, for the time to be taken was only that split fraction of a second that means the difference between deadly accuracy with a sixgun and a miss." perfectly describes those that would spray and pray vs those who were not doing the same. No more or less, and is as valid today as it was back then.

_"Whenever you see a picture of some two-gun man in action with both weapons held closely against his hips and both spitting smoke together, you can put it down that you are looking at the picture of a fool, or a fake."

_Two gun is not preformed from the hip, and if it is, I'd tend to agree with Mr. Earp on the matter.
_
"I remeber quite a few of these so-called two-gun men who tried to operate everything at once, but like the fanners, they didn't last long in proficient company."

_How true, few if that many, can operate two guns at once proficiently, and not knowing how to do so with speed and accuracy would be foolish to try, of course. Those that can and are proficent with using two guns ate once are a different matter altogether.

As I've stated in this thread a few times for yours and others edification, I carry one gun, we train advanced skils using one gun and only demo and allow those who would like to learn the skill of two gun at the end of the training.

Your posts seems to suggest you think I advocate shooting two guns simultaneoulsy, carrying two guns for that proposed purpose on the streets, and advocate that people should. That thought process is incorrect, nor have I alluded to such in my writings here or elsewhere.

The skill of being able to use two guns comes from learning the EPV skills, the skills that get you to be capable of such. EPV skills are ans important component, one not known or explored during Mr. Earps time above ground.

If you go read the histories of those others well known for their shooting skills during the same era, like Buffalo Bill Cody, Annie Oakley, her husband, Hickock, good old Doc Holiday and others, you'll see that they were considered deadly with longarms and pistols, and also shot two guns, ariels with rifles and pistols, etc. Not known for their "basic" skills, but for skills with arms that most, including Earp didn't have, nor practiced.

Hickock was deadly with a brace of pistols, considered the prince of the pistols in his day. Survived many a gunfight as well. Knew a few things men like the Earps didn't know and could not duplicate. History is rife with men who had skills with pistosl well beyond the considered norm then or now.

Brownie


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 4, 2006)

Everything old is new again.

But dont missunderstand me. Ive read a lot of gun forums and your approach to the sighted/front sight press/point shooting continuum is right on IMO. Im just not on board with teaching things that wont be used in a real fight.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 4, 2006)

I'd prefer to think rediscovered myself 

Some very interesting rediscoveries have been brought back, from being lost or at least forgotten over time through extensive research, one of the best examples I can relate personally with is Jim Keating and Bill Bagwells research into the long knives and how they were used in the mid 19th century by masters in New Orleans. Both from the spanish and french standpoints on techniques.

In the case of threat focused skills, and particularly FAS from ww2, it was not a matter of lost [ as it has been well documented in books still available in reprintings ] or forgotten, but more a matter of being discarded, even though the skills within that system are as valid today as they were to the OSS from Britain and the US in real combat as well as the Shanghai Police.

Both histories are rich with numerous success stories of these forms of skills beign used to win in close up and personal encounters of the worst kind where firearms were used.

Brownie


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 4, 2006)

Like I said, Im all in with your approach to point shooting. Anybody who says they havent point shot when up close and/or under pressure is a liar. Give a little more distance and/or cover and maybe you can get a flash sight/front sight press shot. Even further out and you should be getting into sighted fire. IMO. Im just not keen on the "two gun" thing.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 4, 2006)

We usually get people to threat focus out to 21 feet with 100% successful hits into COM with speed in short order. 

I'm of the mind set that I'll try to use the sights if time and distance allow it, but I won't die trying to get to them when they are unnecessary and time is factor in staying above ground at that moment.

The QK is so repeatable, I put 17 rounds into exactly one inch center to center on the holes from 15 feet with no sights on the gun in front of 14 students.

I had them all then try it and three were under 1.5 inches for their group at the same distance at the end of the second day, and no one was over 3 inches without the use of sights.

I understand your view on the two gun shooting, it's not going to be for everyone anymore than threat focused skills will be to begin with. There are still people who train others that refuse to believe it is a viable/reliable method on the streets even when students write their reviews and successes within that context.

Brownie


----------



## matt.m (Aug 4, 2006)

I don't know I was only an expert shot in the marine corps in rifle and pistol.  I would not recommend shooting a pistol in each hand.  It really kills accuracy in my opinion.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 4, 2006)

matt.m;

Semper Fi

What I learned about the use of sights with both [ expert as well in boot on the 14 and then the gov45 in ITR at Geiger, subsequent requalls yearly on both has little bearing on accuracy needs on the streets in a SD situation.

From you post, am I to assume you have used two guns and found a degradation in accuracy? Or are your thoughts more toward precision shooting for score would degrade from the courses and materials we learned at the hands of the DI's and range masters later?

Acceptable accuracy based on distance to threats and time to make the shots, the amount of threat presented are all factors in determining what degradation from the precise shots we can accept.

I'll not die attempting to get to the sights when the requierments dictate it is unnecessary to do so.

Brownie


----------



## matt.m (Aug 5, 2006)

AzQkr said:
			
		

> matt.m;
> 
> Semper Fi
> 
> ...


 
Semper fi big dog.  I was 92-97.  I am speaking from experience so to speak.  I was a very young cpl in haiti in 94.  I tried the whole two 9mm hot dog routine during house to house fighting and riot control reac business.  I found the high and to the right way more prevelant.

I did get a little better to where I would guide my target so to speak more effeciently but great accuaracy was not as prevalant as I would have liked them to be.


----------



## AzQkr (Aug 5, 2006)

Big dog? More like old, very old dog to you, you pup

I was 69-71, dang if that isn't some serious time ago now

I like the fact you tried something most would not, shows the devil dog in you. I'll bet if we talked and I gave you the key to this, you'd have found the house to house easier than you did.

It took me a very long time playing with this and lots of ammo to figure out the technique that makes it reliable and repeatable. If you'd like to hear how I came to getting it together to go try it again, shoot me a pm or email me at arizonaqkr@yahoo.com

Semper Fi

Brownie


----------

