The things some instructors do make me shake my head.
This one was classic James Yeager:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Manual safety or not? 365X
- Thread starter BigAl23
- Start date
This one was classic James Yeager:
That’s two magazines with a weird 90 degree coupler.
Not as crazy as the Russkies shooting 9 mil ball into a trainees IIIA plate
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zj7RNGEo8g
I thought they had to carry it 'unloaded and unchambered' and the mag was like that as a convenient holder in case they needed to spring into action. Tell bad guy to wait, flip over mag, load mag, rack bolt, aim and shoot.
Darkslide
NES Member
I’d hate to be the cameraman, but those drills are useful. Never know when you need to defend yourself while on the ground. What if you’re banging some guy’s wife and he comes barging in with a shotgun… you’d wish you trained shooting from that position
Last edited:
I don’t have any problem with the drill of shooting from the ground — we did that in one of Ayoob’s classes (either LFI-1 or 2). The instructor does have to be very careful in how he has the students recover from that position, so that they don’t muzzle themselves or anyone else.I’d hate to be the cameraman, but those drills are useful. Never know when you need to defend yourself while on the ground. Imagine you’re banging some guy’s wife and he comes barging in with a shotgun… you’d wish you trained shooting from that position
What I was commenting about was not the drill but the photographer downrange. That photographer was one of Yeager’s instructors. Reportedly that happened multiple times. It is completely negligent. It violates every rule of firearm safety. Yeager and his nuthiggers vociferously defended having the photographer downrange.
This is a particularly good example of why you shouldn’t take everything an instructor says as gospel — some of them say or do some pretty stupid things.
Russians. Safety is not high on their priority list.
Darkslide
NES Member
Wow… I don’t know what’s worse, them letting the photographer down range, or the photographer being dumb enough to do it.
Or the students not having the fortitude to walk off the range when that nonsense started.
If people start to do something really stupid on the range and you can’t stop it, then don’t hang around to watch the show.
Grendizer138
NES Member
Which of the 4 rules of firearm safety is the shooter violating here?
Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. If a person is standing right next to the target you are pointing at, that is not a safe direction.
Grendizer138
NES Member
He’s 4’ away from the targets being used by shooters who are 5’ away.
Unless that target he’s literally in front of is being used, in which case even I think that’s f***ed up
That’s not true. Look at the picture above. The shooters are quite a bit further than 5’ from the targets.He’s 4’ away from the targets being used by shooters who are 5’ away.
Unless that target he’s literally in front of is being used, in which case even I think that’s f***ed up
Having anyone downrange is a violation of the first rule of firearms safety and is unsafe, even if they are not directly adjacent to a target. It is also completely unnecessary— tripods and remote releases are a thing.
Grendizer138
NES Member
I disagree with simply being “down range” as a violation of the 4 rules, it’s a “range rule”.
But I agree that it’s unnecessary in this instance.
As an NRA certified firearms instructor, NRA certified range officer, and formerly an IDPA Safety Officer, I disagree with you most strenuously. No one should be downrange while someone is shooting — it is a safety violation.
Grendizer138
NES Member
It’s fine you disagree, I’m not going to try to change your mind. It’s a range rule, and suited for NRA stuff and IDP matches, not training for gun fighting.
Edit: I’m not even saying it’s bad practice, just that “safe direction” is subjective, and there’s some value for advanced gun training because there are no berms in the real world
Last edited:
Oh, God. Not the “there’s no safe direction in the real world” argument. Thanks basically puffing up your chest and saying “we need to take unnecessary risks in training because….reasons.”
If you want to do advanced training with shooting in the direction of other people, that is what force-on-force (Simunitions or Airsoft) is for, not live guns.
Grendizer138
NES Member
Ok, dude. I’ll be hones with you, I stopped remotely caring about your opinion when you used your NRA credentials.
There is no berm in the real world and advanced shooters should be able to manipulate a gun with people around without flagging them. But as usual, your opinion will never change. I’m still waiting on how you “look a gun” into a holster in the dark.
My NRA credentials just shows that I do actually have some formal training on the subject, more than most shooters.
Shooting with someone downrange is unsafe and unnecessary, even for advanced training. You don’t have to put people at risk downrange in order to train people to manipulate a gun safely without pointing it at others.
Grendizer138
NES Member
Do military and police units need to do things like bounding drills? Yes, they do. They need to do training like bounding drills and shoot house entry that includes elevated risk.
When is that type of training relevant to your average non law enforcement civilian? When are you going to be in a team doing a bounding assault against an enemy position?
There are things that we do that involve risk. For example, holstering a loaded gun involves risk, but we do it because it is necessary for both training and for everyday carry — we need to train at holstering and drawing. But we should avoid unnecessary risk.
Grendizer138
NES Member
I didn’t read past the first sentence. Yes, we’re all LARPing to a degree.
Some a lot more than others.
Grendizer138
NES Member
Lol. You guys are training to aim at berms and I think you should train to not aim at people.
Keep training, everyone was an amateur at one point. .
We are all amateurs, none of us are on a assault team, adding unnecessary risk so that you can live out your fantasy is stupid.
But keep wearing your costume and pretend you're something you could never be.
Grendizer138
NES Member
Correct! Lol. And I have the 5.11 pants to prove it!
I will put this in terms that even you can understand, then I’m putting you on ignore. Even your insults are dumb.
We won’t agree on what qualifies as “unnecessary risk,” so putting that aside..my point is that none of Col. Jeff Cooper’s four safety rules are necessarily broken by a person being downrange of another shooter. The fact that you guys accept that it’s not breaking a rule when LEOs do bounding drills confirms that it’s a “range rule.”
So, your goal posts went from having a guy downrange “breaks every safety rule”...to “it breaks one rule”…to “well, it’s only breaking a rule when it’s non-LEO,”.
You don’t think civilians should train for skills they almost certainly won’t need because it’s “unnecessary.” Got it.
Do I think it’s kinda dumb to have a cameraman downrange for a picture? Yes.
Good day!
I didn't say any of that.
You do make believe here as well as you do while training. Go back your dungeons and dragons.
f***ing tactical timmies and your clown instructors
