Condition: Yellow - responsible preparation, and fun, for an unpredictable world

Training With Kyle

After years of acquaintance on Twitter, I finally met and got to train with Kyle Southerland at the Proactive Defense gun range. We did lots of good pistol work and rifle drills. It was a blast and I look forward to the next time. Gig ’em!

100% Headshot Accuracy for Time and Distance

by Andy Rutledge 0 Comments

Today I spent time at the practical range doing something different than my usual.

At the practical range, I’m typically pushing boundaries and exploring my limits with regard to practical and situational defensive drills. This means that I’m riding the edge of my abilities for accuracy and timing, going as fast as I safely can go. The result is that I run at best somewhere around 50% accuracy for the specific hit zone I’m gunning for. I learn much in these training sessions, but what is absent is knowledge of what I’m 100% capable of doing with regard to timing and accuracy (and the HABIT of doing so—important!).

Today’s effort was concerned exclusively with confirming my 100%-accuracy & timing capability for a headshot—4″ x 7″ eye-width face zone measuring from the top of the eyes to the Adam’s apple—while moving off the X and drawing from concealment with my EDC setup (which is the only way I ever train). I worked from 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yards, measuring the time for 10 consecutive good hits in the 4″ x 7″ zone. In every case I only counted the slowest time of the 10 consecutive scoring hits. The result is the time, per distance, that I’m confident I can make a human-stopping headshot with 100% accuracy.

My target area

Some caveats:

  1. Yes, the target zone I’m going for here is taller (twice as tall) than merely the oculonasal area one typically associates with a “turn-out-the-lights” facial headshot. I’m using this larger area for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I’m not yet good enough to hit the 4″ x 3.5″ oculonasal area at 20 or 25 yards consistently, but secondly, supersonic hits to the extended area will still traumatize either the spinal cord or the vital arteries of the lateral neck areas. So this extended area is still a lights-out hit.

  2. Yes, this is a very simple drill: one shot from concealment while moving off of the X, and while under no physical or emotional distress. The point is I need to establish baselines before I can effectively measure more complicated scenarios.

My times for 10 consecutive in-target hits:


  • At 5 Yards: 1.7 seconds
  • At 7 Yards: 1.75 seconds
  • At 10 Yards: 1.8 seconds
  • At 15 Yards: 2.1 seconds
  • At 20 Yards: 2.1 seconds
  • At 25 Yards: 2.3 seconds

Observations

I have training scars! Timing was not too much of an issue until I got out to 15 yards, at which point my pushing-boundaries habits had me consistently going too fast and missing often. I had to deliberately slow down the time from presentation-to-shot in order to find 100% accuracy. This tells me that I need to spend not nearly so much time racing the clock and far more time insisting on quality hits in my training.

My suspicion is that my 20 and 25-yard times are a bit off, because by the time I got to those ranges I had put quite a few rounds downrange and my technique was well practiced (for this session) and my presentation was near flawless. This happens in any training session, where you’re better after a 100 rounds or so than you were for the first 10. I expect that, when cold, I’d be .1 to .3 seconds slower than what I achieved today.

*Upon reflection:* Next time I’ll start at 25 yards and work inward. I want to know my cold 25-yard 100%-accuracy times!

All told, I found today’s training session to be valuable and instructive. I’ll make this a regular part of my training. You might consider doing so yourself!

* * *

Below: Here’s a look at what I was doing. This video is from months ago and on a plate twice as wide as my target area today. Just contextual reference.

Moving With Rapid Fire

by Andy Rutledge 0 Comments

While it’s not an obviously useful skill, shooting rapidly and accurately while moving is a good offensive skill. In today’s wartime environment, it could prove useful one day. Sadly.

Here I’m just trying to move obliquely toward the 10″ square target (on the right) while hitting it with 3 rounds as quickly as I can and still be accurate. These are just some of the more successful passes I made in 50 or 60 reps.

Two-Mag Drill for Indoors

by Andy Rutledge 0 Comments

Here are four reps of a drill I do every week at the indoor range, in my narrow lane. It’s a fundamental gun-handling drill that others are built upon. Here I’m shooting at a silhouette at 7 yards. The image (below) shows the results of a few passes at 7 yards and you might just be able to make out the silhouette I’ve drawn on the target.

The drill is:

  • Move off the X while loading a 1-round magazine and rack the slide,
  • Fire 1 round to chest, gun locks back empty,
  • Reload from concealed 2-round magazine while moving off of the X,
  • Fire 1 round to chest, 1 round to face.

Yes, that one shot in the middle-left is off target. In the real world, that’s called “a lawsuit” (we are responsible for every round that leaves our muzzle).

2-mag drill target at 10 yards

Responsibility

This is my friend John. He’s at the range almost every week working on practical manipulations, technical fundamentals, and marksmanship. Last week, though it was warm, he brought a variety of jackets, coats, and a sweatshirt to practice deploying his carry pistol from under different types and layers of winter clothing. Unlike most, John is a responsible man. God bless John and those few like him.

John

Guns and the Magic of Leftist Law

Following any shooting conspicuously covered by the media there are a few predictable responses in the public discourse. All of these responses are perfectly natural and describe the human experience in its many variations. Among these responses, patterns emerge and in recent years some of these patterns have become not just firmly established, but have taken on the characteristic of a shibboleth. A leftist shibboleth.

This virtue-signaling, leftist shibboleth is, “We need new laws.” Leftists recite this demand every time they encounter a behavior that they find distasteful or, as with free speech or a mass murder, an act that threatens their feelings of safety. These new laws, they promise, won’t be like the ones before them. Leftists proclaim and believe that these new laws will have some extraordinary power to do what no law or combination of laws before them has been able to do: prevent the legal transgression of criminal violence. New laws, you see, are magical.

Magical Laws

The reason leftists always want to use new law as the means to address choices that they find distasteful and choices that result in criminality is because they do not understand the purpose or function of law. Leftists ever imagine that laws are meant to control people; to control behavior and compel compliance. Control has never been the function of law and law always fails in this misdirected purpose, which easily explains why leftists are forever unsatisfied by how their laws fail to impact crime. Yet in the face of repeated failures they continually sell the idea of the Magical Law that will once and for all correct the problem. Why, then, does the magic never work?

As John Adams rightly observed in his letter of October 11, 1798 to the Massachusetts militia…

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Those paying attention today will note how modern leftist society is tearing at the edges of this very inadequacy that Adams warned us about. The spirit of Adams’ sentiment here touches on the proper function and purpose of just law. Laws are boundaries. The purpose of law is twofold: 1) to describe prohibited behaviors which would otherwise infringe on citizens’ individual liberty and property (e.g. don’t steal, don’t murder), and 2) to describe rules of order so that many people can operate and interact safely in a complex environment (e.g. traffic laws). Component to these functions, law also describes the penalties for transgression. Nowhere in these functions is there any ability of law to control individual choices or prevent transgression. Civil society operates on a mutual agreement to obey the law AND to do so with the promise of punishment for transgression. Note that this promise of punishment is not just meant to function as a deterrent. Just as this promise is the gauge by which bad people might weigh risk, it is also the gauge by which good people will determine an administration’s worthiness to govern (is it or is it not enforcing the laws?). In the end, by cordoning off unacceptable behaviors from acceptable ones, our laws describe our public mores and cultural character.

Law has no capacity to prevent someone from robbing a store or from making an illegal purchase or from murdering a neighbor. These are acts of volition; free choices that are a byproduct of life in a free society. Yet when some bad person commits some terrible act, leftists in government and civil society will cry, “If you want these things to stop, we must make more laws; tougher laws!” What they mean is, “This time it’ll be different, but we must destroy your liberty to make the difference!” Oh, and it is never different. It’s never different because criminality is the product of culture and character, not of laws.

Leftists ever work to craft a society that proclaims, “Character and culture don’t matter! Depravity is just as functional as morality! Refutation is hate speech!” Yet when one understands law and human behavior, and examines the record of crime and social interaction throughout human history, it becomes clear that with regard to man’s capacity and choice to commit violent crime, character and culture are the only things that matter.

You, the reader, likely own some kitchen knives or gardening implements, a baseball bat, or perhaps even one or more firearms. You deliberately chose to purchase these products that have been used by people to kill millions of other people throughout history. But in accordance with civil society, you simply agree not to murder someone with these tools. This is a choice that you are free to make or not make. Should you choose to commit a murder with one of these tools, no law could prevent you. You would likely be apprehended and rightly punished, but no law compels your choice. Instead it is your core values and morality that drive your choice to live peacefully within the law or to break the law by committing violence against an innocent.

The leftist observes your moral, peaceful choice and does not trust it. The mere fact that you could choose to behave in a criminally violent manner threatens their concept of social order. Moreover and because of what they know of themselves and those like them, they believe that being armed with a firearm changes people into power-drunk ogres who will shoot you down if you dare disagree with or annoy them. Also, leftists don’t believe in good and evil because that would imply that there are moral absolutes and that core values matter. Therefore, your freedom to choose peace or violence is reason enough in their mind to prove that your potential means of inflicting terrible harm must be outlawed or highly constrained. And if you own the outlawed means for inflicting harm it must be confiscated from you. In this effort they seek to remove your ability to choose and instead control your actions under their regulations rather than your free will. In other words, since people may choose to do bad things, and we can’t tell the good from the bad until they do harm, rights are irrelevant and we must destroy liberty to preserve (the feeling/delusion of) safety. This ridiculous approach seems appropriate to leftists because they subscribe to the fallacy that if you but pay close enough attention to your emotions you’ll find that so-called God-given rights don’t really matter. Instead, what matters is how people feel. Therefore, the fact that putting up a “Gun-Free Zone” sign has no effect on those who choose to ignore it (again and again, with bloody results every year) is irrelevant. Prohibition and destruction of rights is all a leftist knows. When he believes something must be done, he has logically but one card to play: tyranny.

The moral person understands that in a free society bad people will sometimes do bad things and the proper response to this fact is to preserve an individual’s liberty to defend against this unwelcome anomaly. He understands that civil society is fostered by and must be built upon the family and the instilling of moral core values; in the absence of which a society spoils and crumbles. The immoral, emotion-driven person believes that free will cannot be trusted. He understands that civil society is built upon government programs and forced compliance (with the proper allocation of resources). Therefore, government should be set up to compel compliance and greatly limit choices in order to prevent unsafe or illegal ones. The difference here is one between a society where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are cultivated and revered – and – one where existence, obedience, and the pursuit of compliant virtue are enforced and despised. The former is the American ideal. The latter is the leftist ideal. They are enemies and the one must crush the other…and keep crushing it lest it take hold again.

In the United States of America, our unalienable rights to keep and bear arms, to free speech, free association, free practice of religion, and more are being continually and incrementally crushed by leftist tyranny because the leftist fallacy of magical law, with its allegiance to emotion rather than to morality, is never sufficiently challenged. If our unalienable rights are to endure, we must defend them with vigor and righteousness, and if necessary—as is our right and responsibility—with arms.

A Hands-On Defense

With this morning’s drill I’m drawing from almost three decades of martial arts practice to augment my armed defensive technique with my EDC pistol.

In a hands-on situation it will likely be very hard to draw and bring a concealed pistol into the fight, but there are ways to buy time and gain position. This drill is just one way for a very specific situation. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS INSTRUCTION AND DO NOT TRY THIS DRILL WITHOUT PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTION FROM A QUALIFIED INSTRUCTOR, as it is very easy to shoot yourself in the arm or hand!

Note also that this technique puts you in a fairly dangerous position, with your underarms, ribs, and several other vital attack points greatly exposed. The mitigation for this exposure is a quick reversal of position, taking away those targets before the assailant can attack them. It ALSO exposes the firearm, placing it in close proximity to the assailant. It is therefore vital that the distraction (elbow strikes) be executed with viciousness and ferocity so that the assailant doesn’t notice the brief exposure.

Cold-Weather Pistol Drills

First cold day of the year so I broke out the layers. Had to remember how to defeat the clothing layers to get to my EDC gun and magazines. Part of it went good and part of it was a disaster. This is why it’s called training.

Cold-weather reload drill:

Cold-weather “bro, do you even accuracy” drill. Here, I did not even.

Engagement Strategy Carbine Drill

Here’s I’m just training to cut the danger in half by seeking cover from one bad guy while engaging the other one. Then I use cover, and switch hands & shoulder, to engage the second bad guy.

To switch shoulders I have to manipulate my sling, pulling on the tail to change it from shortest length to longest length so that I can get it across my body to my left shoulder. Then I’m using left-handed grip and left eye to keep my danger/exposure to a minimum when I engage.

You’ll also see me crouch down on the last couple of reps as I engage the second bad guy from cover. This is because he saw me run to cover and expects me to come out at the same horizontal level. I gain a half second or so by engaging from a different horizontal level than he likely expects