While reading the latest issue of SWAT magazine, I came across James Yeager’s article titled “Dogmatic Doctrine”. While I agree with most all of his comentary on keeping our curriculum as trainers current and relevent, he appears to be advocating an “Up High” position for not just weapon manipulations, but as a ready position also used during 360 degree scanning of your environment and movement.
While I think this position is superior to the traditional low ready position for conducting 360 degree scans, and weapon manipulations, I think compared to the SUL position used during scanning and movement, its usefullness ends there. Am I off base here? This post is in no way meant to flame Yeager on this, but if there is more utility to this Sky High ready position during scanning/movement, I would like to know about it.
I do fine it ironic that the “up” position was a non-desirable position with certain training companies until around 2005. Then it suddenly became the “in” thing. Seemed like a change for the sake of change step to me.
There’s no one perfect position. The high port is very effective in open areas, rapid movement in that environment and allows for effective weapon manipulation during movement.
Does that mean that nothing any instructor teaches can ever be wrong, just different? Is it all “just another tool in the toolbox” or is there some point at which a line must be drawn?
When taking instruction from someone you’ve paid to teach you I do believe you should try “their way” even if after the class you won’t use any of it. Take it as a life lesson that not everything taught is of value, sometimes people make mistakes and get bad instructors…that’s life. I can say being the optimist that I am, that there has never been a class that I’ve attended that I haven’t learned something…
I think you might have missed the point…there’s an old saying which I really dislike since I like cats. “There’s more than one way to skin a cat.” This optimistically suggests that there’s more than one way to do something. Of course some ways are much better than others. Not often but sometimes muzzle up makes more sense.
One example I can think of: Say you’re a SWAT officer or DEA agent doing a no-knock on a meth lab. All the ethyl-methyl badshit is on the floor or at waist level. Which way is safe for your muzzle?
I also believe that if you’ve paid an instructor to teach you then you should try “their way.” But I would also submit that you should do your best to attempt to vet an instructor as thoroughly as you possibly can beforehand so there are no major surprises in store for you or major conflicts with your current shooting style.
Honestly Robb, at the level that you are at now, would you seek out training from an instructor that insisted that you shoot Weaver in his class? I am not disparaging Weaver, I am making a point that you have chosen to go down an alternate path. If an instructor had you wrap your support finger around the triggerguard would you do it? After all of the investment of repetitions and muscle memory you have invested currently? These are just two examples to illustrate a point.
Speaking of points… I don’t think that I missed yours, but I am questioning the validity of that cliche in the training world. Of course there are various ways to accomplish a task or achieve a result. There is a difference between “viable” and “optimal” and then even “marginal”.
So, an instructor might teach something that to you seems completely wrong. You then question why they teach it like that? Their answer: Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
This type of answer becomes less acceptable to me as time goes on. At this point I very carefully research who I train under so that there will be no major conflicts with my own methodology. This does not preclude learning new things, but does help insure that I am not wasting my time and money.
I would not take instruction even if it were free from an instructor or school that teaches Weaver. Simply because I tried it for more than 75% of the time I’ve been shooting (1975-today) and it does works, BUT it is much more 'perishable’ as it were than isosceles…I know who still teaches this and don’t intend to ever go there, nor spend money on an instructor insisting that I use Weaver. That’s the difference.
Example: I can outshoot (accuracy and speed) many of the instructors that I’ve taken instruction from…this doesn’t however mean that they can’t teach me something. And it doesn’t suggest that I should consider anything that they’re teaching as wrong or somehow ineffective. Only seeking out instructors who are shooters that are faster or more accurate than me would be foolish.
It depends on the circumstances he/she is teaching that method for.
For instance, let’s say someone said to do an entry(first man in) in the Sul or low port, entry ready, whatever you want to call it. That would be wrong.
