I thought this article was VERY interesting, especially in light of some of the threads related to this subject that have gone sideways here.  Not trying to "stir the pot", but just giving folks some food for thought, from a different source.




http://www.refactortactical.com/blog/a-rebuttal-to-all-the-haters-by-88-tactical/
A rebuttal to all the haters by 88 Tactical



Posted on April 04, 2015
Referenced video: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=797427123644870&set=vb.181030808617841&type=2&theater
Second Referenced video: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=797640783623504&set=vb.181030808617841&type=2&theater
I posted a couple of videos of myself and DC running a drill at a recent course that has generated a great deal of controversy, expected ridicule, and questions. Knowing that our methodology is so completely different from the norm, we don’t expect people to be able to properly evaluate what they see. It is a complete paradigm shift for a lot of people, especially those who haven’t been exposed to dynamic limited penetration tactics.
Let’s start with my background. I have 25 years of military service, the vast majority of it in the Army Special Forces. I currently serve as a Team Sergeant on an ODA in a National Guard Unit. I have multiple combat deployments to several A.O.s, my most recent being Afghanistan in 2013. All of my wartime Army deployments consisted of direct action missions with national commando units. In addition to my military experience, I have 20+ years in law enforcement holding various assignments to include a street crimes unit, SWAT, and duty as the primary defensive tactics instructor for a large department. Currently I work part-time in law enforcement to maintain my credentials. I have worked in the dignitary protection field for about 15+ years as well, protecting everyone from high profile individuals to various presidents, first ladies, and other dignitaries and business professionals. For the last 11 years I have also deployed in non-disclosure operations in high-risk assignments for the U.S. government as a contractor. I have attended advanced courses in just about every combative subject, and have completed numerous instructor courses including Israeli counter-terrorism tactical courses. To summarize, my life has largely been a laboratory of violence and human behavior under duress. I have been good enough at it that I have been able to work with some truly great people, and it unfortunately has sometimes been at great cost.
As far as CQB is concerned, I learned pretty much the same things as everyone else and practiced those things operationally at fairly high levels. Over time, with exposure and perhaps a unique breadth of experience, I began to question a lot of what I was taught versus the reality of what I saw and experienced. There seemed to be a massive disconnect between training and reality, and expected performance and actual behavior. The more I learned, the more I rejected. I found much of it to be massively dogmatic, or ego based or personality worship driven.
For the record, I will admit to being dumb enough to be dogmatic about shooting in a weaver stance, always demanding front sight focus, and practicing Tae Kwon Do thinking it was legitimate self-defense art. I even ran into rooms with my hair on fire trying to process and shoot on the move. With almost all of that I have either completely changed course or found a way to put it into context. I became an expert grappler and competed in MMA, I am a heavy advocate of point shooting in context and I rarely run into a room to clear it unless it is obviously more dangerous outside or if I absolutely need to enter to accomplish my mission.
In my operational free time, I began an academic-like study of motor learning and behavioral psychology as it relates to the combat field. The first thing I learned was that instinctive and natural-intuitive behaviors frequently override training in the first and most critical moments of a sudden life-threatening encounter. I also learned that training out of context does not transfer well to the real world where things are not only physical, but also mental and emotional, and come with great uncertainty. In real life there are a lot of overrides that get in the way of the high brain activity training that most people practice, often exclusively.
For example, someone might do their CQB based on paper target shoot house methods thinking it is going to transfer to the real world. As soon as real resistance is encountered that training usually goes out the window. With paper targets there is no worry about getting shot, which ignores rewarding the most important part of CQB, decision making is dumbed down, and there is little emotional activation of the body alarm systems. The dogmatic line of "you fight like you train” is mostly a lie! The truth is that you fight like you train, as long as the fight is like your training. If you plan on fighting paper in a shoot house, then it will probably go as expected. There is a need to shoot paper in shoot houses to confirm a lot of things you otherwise practice based on observed reality, and human behavior when fighting real life opponents. Most of the time, people get in it reverse and try to run in real life what they developed in a shoot house. I could provide a hundred other examples.
Prior to a military deployment to Mosul, Iraq in 07-08 where I knew I was going to have a direct action role with Iraqi commandos in CQB operations, my research went into overdrive. I already knew that running into a room—traditional immediate entry—worked mostly when surprise was certain and resistance was weak. I looked to see who had dealt with similar opponent in similar environments and this led me to the Israelis who had been dealing with the exact same thing for decades. What they did was so different it didn’t initially make sense. But I patiently did my research, tested things out, and sought out Israelis special operations instructors for training in their methods.
My introduction in limited penetration tactics was quickly cemented by real life application, the viewing of every possible real life combat video I could get my hands on, and my previously mentioned study of human behavior. Never being one who was satisfied with what I was taught, over time I merged the limited penetration tactics with some aspects of immediate entry CQB. I found a way to simplify it and wrap together in a pretty good package based on three main criteria for testing: Did it make tactical sense? Did it make behavioral sense? And, could it be efficiently trained. I tried to confirm as much as I could through videos, studies, and testing force on force training. It is still in process.
That leads me to what I currently do and what you see on the videos. I will simply take some of the common questions and try to explain what we do and why. Most of my objections to what people believe are usually summarized by simply asking for empirical evidence, or pointing out that it is either tactically unsound or not compliant with human behavior under real world conditions. Show me the studies or video of people doing it under real life duress. I don’t care about what someone else says and I don’t care what people do when fighting paper on the range. If you simply believe something different and can’t provide any evidence other than you were taught that way, then have your belief and move along.
First of all, the video is of a drill, not a scenario. Who sends in one man to take on four or five ready threats with hostages? Its purpose was to build upon what we call a segmented search and cornering, working angles and doorways to engage threats, and adapting to the geometry to ensure you are minimally exposed to threats while engaging targets with hostages and third parties in the way. The walls were considered cover. It was both of our first runs on the structure. I pulled DC (the other shooter) off another range and slapped him around a bit and told him to clear it spontaneously. He only had a simple brief about the need to only engage humanoid targets holding a gun and that the plastic targets were third parties not to be shot.
Why don’t you move into the room?
I could write paragraphs upon paragraphs of all of the benefits of limited entry. The way we do it maximizes survivability, allows two guns to get into a fight quickly, gives the team the opportunity to bail out and allows shooters to avoid outrunning their eyes and brains. Most SWAT team catastrophic entries used immediate entry tactics. It produces a greater number of casualties in precision environments. I have had plenty of students tell me they wished they had learned it earlier so some of their friends would be alive. On my last deployment I saw an entire company of commandos switch to doing it after one commando got killed doing immediate entry. They immediately knew it was dumb and switched against their training.
We don't immediately enter a room as a default. We do it when it is clearly makes the most sense. Most of the time, we feel that it doesn’t. Behaviorally when people are exposed to a sudden high intensity threat they stop forward movement and as muscles tighten under duress, you will see shuffle stepping dominate. Look at the top tier teams in France and Australia dealing with recent hostage situations. All of that cool guy flow went out the window as they stopped, addressed threats, and at best carefully shuffled forward under kill or be killed pressure. It's the same for almost any entry.
The idea of flowing into a room in the face of threats is something largely theoretical. I have scores of tactical team videos and hostage rescues and in none of them does a person roll in shooting on the move against an immediate threat. They all stop. Can you really train a large pool of even above average CQB assaulters to do it? I’m not so sure. It certainly puts the burden of proof on someone to prove it. Of course if the threat isn’t immediate or aware, you can move forward or you can be forced to shoot on the move due to momentum. I know teams that have switched over to limited penetration see their guys covered with a lot less paint at the end of a training day. Most smart tier I teams are using limited penetration tactics. Are they all wrong?
Why do stay so close to a corner?
Tactically staying close limits your exposure to other angles versus pie-ing out wide and around. It also allows teammates to maneuver around you in tight confines without crossfire issues. Behaviorally nearly everything I have seen or experienced shows that once fire is received or sudden threats appear, people instinctively or intuitively hug cover. Watch video. From a training perspective it simplifies a lot of things and allows one to intuitively know how much their body is exposed. We fight from cover to cover, angle to angle, moving from quickly from one point to the next, then slowing down and working the next piece. It's the same indoors or out. We don’t clear like we are rolling invincible tanks.
Why do you flag your weapon?
Our rule is this: when moving slow, don’t flag; when moving fast, flagging is allowed to address an immediate threat. Our priority by a large margin is to deal with the known immediate threat in the best way possible first before worrying to much about could be or might have been threats. If you don’t survive the next few seconds of your life, it doesn’t matter who else is in the room or in the building. If you are pie-ing close it is sometimes necessary, it allows for a braced shot, and it better ensures good use of cover. When working with a team, your teammate usually has an angle across from you letting him shoot anyone you don’t see simultaneously. The Israelis flag their weapons massively in comparison and when asked about it, they say it hasn’t caused any real world problems after decades of constant war. Most of the objections to it are from people who were scarred by instructors who purposely waited around every corner to grab muzzles that might emerge. Ideally we would never flag, but we believe we set a reasonable standard. What if I guy grabbed my barrel? I would shoot him or scrape his arms off using the edge of the doorway and I would be happy he let me know he was in there before I walked in and fully exposed myself possible turning my back to him as I picked a corner and hoped.
Why do you compress your weapon, use a high ready, or come out of firing posture?
We are non-dogmatic about weapons flow and we teach several ready, carry, and on-threat positions. We believe a shooter should be able to shoot from all positions to all angles quickly with minimal effort. When we search or pie off a corner, we generally search from a slightly compressed low ready. If a guy likes another ready position, they are free to use it. They all have their merits. We do like the high ready when maneuvering in close confines and feel it is significantly safer and more efficient in that aspect. We also compress weapons when moving through a door, but you will note we snap them out immediately into a firing position. I come out of low ready twice: once when pivoting well past 90 degrees and slightly to compress before attacking my final corner in the last room. DC stays in low ready pretty much the whole time. Some people thought it was odd that we came off our sights at all. I didn’t know anyone taught to clear rooms through their sights anymore, but apparently that is what some internet commandos expected.
Why did you cross an open door?
That is easy. In all cases there was a no shoot target in the way and we intuitively felt it was better to take the shot from the other side of the door. The only other viable options would have been to try to take the shot while moving across the door once there was a clear angle. This would be very difficult for anyone. The other option would be moving into the room and exposing ourselves to other threats. Remember the camera is not where our eyes and muzzle were and there was some pretty good wind blowing targets around. Once we realized the need to maneuver to make the shot, both of us move across the door and begin shooting from the other side in 2 seconds or less. This is a trained action we call "snapping to cover.” It allows you to maintain visual contact on the threat and weld your body tightly to cover for a stable and protected shot. Apparently to some, moving laterally and engaging a threat from cover is now a bad tactic?
We will stick with our decision even if it wasn’t perfect. One of our training methodologies is basically the 20/80 rule or Pareto’s principle. We heavily work the 20% of things that will get us through 80% of the solutions. We try to work them enough that they can almost always squeeze us through the last 20%. Trying to have a technique to do the ideal thing in every situation is hopeless. It is like second guessing every cruiser camera video after watching it five times from the safety of your mother’s basement. I hate the "tool in the tool box” analogy. It is more like another tool in your rucksack which you are going to have the training burden of carrying around with you every second of your life. How much do you really want to put into that rucksack? When it comes to intuitive solutions, you don't have time to dig around in an oversized rucksack and make a bunch of ideal choices. Your skill isn’t based on your training; it is based on your retention. In other words, what can you do right now on demand. I am a pretty decent shot, but can I move laterally on demand and hit a narrow near hostage shot right now with no warm-up? Maybe? But, I know I can snap to cover and make the shot nearly every time.
Why did you fire too many shots and why were you too slow?
We had several people comment that we should have shot each target twice and moved on. This is caused by more training dogma. I was done with the double tap over 15 years ago. I am not saying I would never shoot two then move to the next, but I will say conditioning yourself to shoot two and evaluate is about one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. First, it is not a legal standard. Every modern instructor I know teaches to shoot to stop the threat. That means as many rounds as it takes. Any understanding of the OODA loop would tell you that you are going to be behind the curve if you are evaluating when the threat is still shooting. Any study of how many shots end gunfights and review of video will tell you its dumb. If you study human behavior at all, you know most of the time you are going to lock onto that first, most intense threat until something changes. As a standard we teach 3-5 rounds mixing the number. Occasionally we will shoot two to save ammo and still test recoil control. In DC’s run he shot 4 rounds at each target, one at the hostage taker, and I shot 5 at each. Ideally we would have mixed it up, we usually intend to. In no case did I have two targets in one field of view and DC had to first deal with a hostage taker then switch to a second obscured target. You have to deal with immediate threats immediately and thoroughly before worrying too much about the maybe or might be.
As far as speed is concerned, it was not a hostage rescue operation. It was a dynamic drill. My run was a demo at 23 seconds for three rooms and four targets firing 20 shots. DC had five targets including a hostage rescue shot and difficult shots and was done a few seconds slower. We could definitely pick things up if we were overly concerned about ego, had practiced specifically to do that or if it was to be done at what we call rescue speed. But to call it slow without even knowing the methodology is a bit ridiculous. Simply show me a team doing anything close to the same thing at greater speed in a real environment. In the Paris incident an entire team takes the same amount of time to shoot one gunman in one larger room. In Sydney, the first group of four men didn't make it past the first door in half that time and it took quite a bit of time to eliminate the hostage taker. Again, we don’t base our training on what we can produce at the range for the sake of speed. We determine the tactics based on real world encounters, then work those tactics at the range.
Why didn’t your gun always follow your eyes?
Again, this is a dogmatic belief ingrained by abusive instructors who beat their indoctrination into the brains of young impressionable soldiers and Marines who weren’t trusted to think independently. Does my gun generally follow my eyes? Yes, it is a generally sound principle, except for when it creates greater risk or problems. At times we feel it makes a lot more sense to keep the gun oriented on the primary or most significant threat area as we quickly check a secondary area by looking over our shoulder for a brief moment. This was something again taken from the Israelis. We call it a shoulder check of check back. It is a technique we frequently use when moving forward quickly on an angle or area to clear it or when we are forced to enter an area with opposing openings, such as prior to one man entering a center-fed doorway.
This is the exact technique I used on the last room. It was trained and purposeful. We have multiple ways of dealing with the situation and all are trained and used at different times. I am not going to cover them here. It is faster than what can be achieved by swinging the whole gun and shooting platform around. If there is a threat that has your back for any length of time and is prepared to engage you, the best solution is usually to bail out of the doorway and find another way to address the threat. If your solution is to run into the room only to spin around, fully exposed, to find a guy getting ready to shoot you, then I suggest you sim that out a few times. The shoulder check is an admitted compromise that works for specific conditions. But when clearing as one man, you have to make compromises. If you don’t like it, there are other options based on context.
You would have been killed multiple times because you (fill in the blank)
Using my run for example. First target hit from outside the room from behind cover. Second target hit after lateral movement and behind cover; third target hit from what is often a surprise narrow angle deep into the room using cover; last target hit from outside the room from behind cover. I engaged every target after seeing it in about 1 second taking about two seconds to move laterally and engage from the far side of the door. If we were engaging real people who reacted and forced us to shoot sooner, we would have assumed more risk of an errant shot and fired quicker. That is called reality. Thinking only of speed and precision is a range-based error. We evaluate speed, precision, survival, and decision. In other words, we try to make ourselves a hard target through different means as we effectively engage threats.
I was never bodily exposed to two targets at one time and there was nothing more than the tip of my barrel at most while I engaged a threat in the room. What if they could shoot through the cover (meaning it wasn’t really cover)? Well, if they were that ready, what would you gain by not having any cover or the ability to bail out? What if the other guy in the room saw your barrel as you shot the first target? If he was not armed and ready, he would have a few seconds before facing me, ready to shoot him from the protection of cover. He might even have a bit more stress since I just shot his buddy. My question is this: what if he saw your whole body enter the room as you engaged the first target? What if you tried to stay so far off that door that you exposed yourself too much to the known immediate threat and got shot by him? There are a lot of "what if’s.” for something that was a simple drill.
I know this was lengthy, but I felt the background was important to understand the context. If you absolutely think what we do is stupid and we suck, then please continue to do what you will. Most likely I think what you do is something I already tried for a decade or so and realized it sucked. It is also probably something I can disprove the validity of very quickly with real world video. If you know what we are doing and have been significantly exposed to limited penetration tactics, then you most likely approve of what we did but might have a few minor points that you specifically disagree with. This is pretty expected. If you know what we are doing and think we really suck, then please get in contact with me because I am willing to learn. If you are one of those people with an open mind and you want to try to understand it more, please reference some of my articles on the subject of limited penetration and the main deadly errors in CQB. Research it as much as you can, and if you want, find a course we teach and jump in. I start to change a lot of CQB religions in the first hour with my power point presentation. Showing real world videos.
On a side note, if you are one of the complete arrogant idiots who said my EOtech was on backwards (It was an Meprolight M.O.R. on correctly) then please go choke yourself in a third world sewer and banish yourself from ever commenting about tactics or gear ever again. For those of sufficient character to apologize, apology accepted.
Most of us, including me, are out there trying to stay alive, trying to learn, and trying to help save the lives of fellow Americans and our allies. You can hate all you want, or opine all you want, but try to have an open mind, question everything you are told until it is realistically tested, and train hard.
P.S. here are a few real world video links for you to review and consider.
   1.Bank Hostage:



   






   2.Sydney Siege:





   




   3.Paris Shoot Out:





   




   4.Marines in Fallujah:





   




   5.Israeli two man assault drill:





   




   6.SF Stud:





   
 

Tldr

ADD sucks, huh.

This 88 tactical guy sounds like an INTP meyers-briggs personality type. lol. Analyzing the crap out of everything and trying to put it all into a logical perspective based on observed data and his experiences and what makes the most empirical sense, constantly in search of the objectively best solution for a given problem.

I personally think his reasoning is logical, and if his credentials are what he represents them to be, then he seems like someone who would know what he's talking about.


For what it's worth, an SF CIF team member I was shooting with at the range recently was showing me several similar techniques, including compressing the weapon when moving around corners, etc and then snapping it back into the shoulder to shoot. I had honestly never seen that but it sounds like, according to this article, it's becoming common among professional shooters.

They like their "C clamp" grip too.

 
Yep

Very interesting discourse.  I was especially interested in the fact that the Israelis are using this technique.  Funny part about the Mepro/Eotech deal.  I was at the range the other day with my favorite SF dude, and we met a guy shooting this new Tavor.  He hands me the sight to check out the view, and I instinctively turn it like a Eotech.  Well it was the Mepro sight, so I looked like a tool.  But you know, it ain't a bad sight, once you get it pointed the right way.

Anyways, I wanted to chime in here, because I think it's important to examine this technique, and what this dude is saying.  After having just a little experience with it in Max's C3 class, I think it makes a lot of sense, for me, as an armed civilian, if I ever have to do something along these lines.  I will be lucky to have one other guy, and extremely blessed to have a team of 4.  So from this perspective, I think it's a viable technique for us to use.

Now, as to what .mil and LE are doing.  That's another kettle of fish.  I really have zero experience to comment on that.  Perhaps some others will chime in.

It would seem to me to make sense, based on the guy's research and experience.  Exactly the same as Max's research and experience.  And brother Lee, who teaches the C3 class at MVT.  And my buddy, who's a 6-tour combat vet with lots of assaulter experience, just like the author.  I think we are seeing some evolution in technique here, based on real-world experience.  But again, that's just my opinion, as I have no direct experience in these matters.  

I agree. I think what we are seeing here is maybe not so much an evolution of technique, as much as an understanding of what the technique people end up defaulting to anyway, despite the training... and training that way. He seems to be focused on ignoring how everyone IMAGINES that people will react in these situations and observing and learning how they DO act, and then basing his training around that.

Mission drives equipment and training. I've yet to see anyone address that.

I just stated what my mission is, but let me expound on it to clarify.  I train for possible scenarios I may face, as an armed civilian, in a WROL situation.  My mission is to defend myself, my loved ones, and any innocent by-standers that I can.  That is why I commented that this technique is more fitting for a single guy, or small team, as that is probably the way I would have to fight.  Granted it might suck fighting by yourself, or even with just another guy, but it is what it is.

"Pieing" from the door, instead of rushing into a room just makes more sense to me.  Especially, as I said, if you're on your own, or even with one other.  I don't have a full team to "stack up" with and flood the room, even if I wanted to.  So from the standpoint of civilian self-defense, this technique has a lot to offer, IMHO.  You can argue all day long about the likelihood of ever needing it, but if you see the possibility, according to your own estimate of the situation, then I would consider it.

As to the .mil and LE guys.  OK, here you have the capability to use damn-near any technique you want.  The questions is, for their missions, is this also a viable technique?  I think that the evidence is starting to stack up to say, yes, it is.  But again, that is just my opinion.

TAG for reading latter.

What specific scenarios do you envision?

I can't speak for Diz, but this would be relevant to just about ANY violent encounter involving firearms inside a building, whether an individual clearing his house, or a small team clearing a building.

Why does the building need cleared? What's the (commander's) intent?

It's all about having options. Sometimes pieing completely across the door isn't going to be the best solution and other times it will.  The situation dictates what to use and sometimes you're going to be bone'ed any way you go

 
I'm pretty sure that getting into the philosophical reasons behind the meaning of life aren't necessary for this discussion. If someone is training for room clearing it is in preparation for a scenario in which the room needs to be cleared. There are many reasons why a room may need to be cleared.


Instead of trolling everyone, why don't you explain how the reasons behind needing to clear the room affect the training that goes into the technique? You obviously feel like you have some kind of insight that everyone else is missing. Enlighten us.

Mission drives training and equipment. "Classic CQB" works when hostages are on the line. "Tactical clearance"  works when there's some pressing concern forcing people to clear the structure. If it isn't SHTF, why aren't the cops doing it? If SHTF, what are the individual or groups medical plans when someone gets blown up in a booby trap or shot?  A more effective technique that isn't nearly as glamorous is sitting back and watching. Which is why modern civil wars inevitably turn into sniperfests, which are super unglamorous.

Selco suggests moving into the first room fast, then waiting as quietly as possible for a few hours.

Selco... the blogger/snake oil salesman that has survived several wars and been in many gunfights, and for the low price of $29.95 will send you his 8 hour lecture on how to survive shtf based on his incredible and harrowing experiences?

 

OOOOk... well, if that's where this thread is heading, then I'm out. And no, I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not Selco is even a real person, since there seems to be no evidence either way, so everyone just argues from their ego, especially if they like what he says or paid him money to listen to it. If you think he's awesome, then great. I bet you enjoy the shenanigans of that darned Russian kid on the youtubes, too.


Personally, I'm skeptical. Even of this 88 Tactical guy, but at least his story adds up. :sigh:

My point was that this argument misses the bigger picture. Do you concur or not?

Israeli clearing makes some sense when you're dealing with buildings with solid (cover) walls. Better to Israeli clear than charge in and have a dude drop a frag on his way the his virgins.

You know, this is the problem with the internet.  You don't know who you're talking to.  Could be a serious combat vet, or the fatboy in mamma's basement.  I will address myself to the former.  If you have any type of event, where Emergency Services are temporarily overwhelmed, you may have to DIY the sit, whatever it may be.  Let's say you have a Ferguson style event.  No justice, no peace, etc.  Rioting and looting are sweeping through your neighborhood.  You rush home to find your house broken into.  Your wife and kids were in there.  You have no choice but to clear it yourself.  Is this so far out of the realm of possibility that you think it's foolish to consider?  If so, drive on.  I beg to differ, however.  

What if you were the first responder at an active shooter event?  You have to chase down this asshole running through a building.  To let him go means more innocent women and children are gonna die.  Are you just gonna say fuckit, not my problem, or are you gonna hunt the MF down and shoot him in the face?  Is this so crazy?  Bet all those folks in Paris thought so, right up to the point where it happened to them.

Do you really think LE is usually first on the scene of your average violent encounter?  If you or your family are ever assaulted, I would bet that you will have to be the first responder.  Since nearly all of us live in some type of urban/ semi-urban environment, there's a real good chance you might have to fight inside structures.  A violent home invasion is the same, pre or post SHTF, unless you have a sheriff's deputy posted outside your house 24/7?

If you have family, neighbors, etc, nearby.  Someone breaks into their house.  Are you gonna just wait for LE or are you going to do something about it?  My buddy just had something like this happen in his neighborhood, not two weeks ago.  This dude breaks into his car, then breaks into a neighbors home  He grabbed his Glock and went out to confront him.  Took LE over 45 minutes to get there.        

Yeah I know what you're thinking.  This guy is a real tool.  He thinks he's Chuck Norris or something.  And you don't know me from Adam, either. I could be the fatboy in the basement.  No, to all of the above, it's just that I can't see standing around when something like this happens.  We can argue all day long about the likelihood of it, but the fact remains we live in a violent world, which I choose to prepare for.  You do what you want.

I support those who prepare for a violent world, but suggest they be realistic about their preparations. I'm known to most of the locals of the same mindset as the guy who trains too hard, for situations too fucked up. Whatever. These are all just words on an internet forum, and your perception is your reality. Carry on.

To rack up 20+ years in LE, 20+ years in SF, and 15 years as a contractor then a fair amount of that time has to be gained through time in the Reseves, as a part time LEO, etc unless he is old as dirt

Yeah.  That's been discussed at depth before. Not to downplay his credentials, but most of his time is reserve time for both the military and LE. A few weekends and a few callouts is not a solid 15/20+ years.

Regardless, it has been stated several times on this board and many others, that there is a limited place for the techniques presented. The issue is that a) the "basement fanboys" (as described in thread) like to advocate it as the only was to clear or being superior to other, combat proven methods and b) that every SOF unit is using them when it has also been established by those units that it is NOT being used by any of them.  Everyone, regardless of experience level, can agree that there are scenarios where this method is beneficial. It is not, however, to be considered the end all and greatest technique ever as it has been rejected by those who do this every day for a living as the total solution.

Subscribed

There are a lot of very high end "units" doing this. Particularly the ones who have engaged in urban combat that lasted days and not minutes.

And even a cursory YouTube examination would reveal that a lot of Tactical LEO teams are training in limited penetration tactics.  Very recent, but the transition is there.

Again with the "bullet proof walls" only.  Really?  Whoever this 88Tactical guy is, he does address this common myth that limited penetration only works with walls that stops bullets.  You have no advantage by charging into the room, and do not have the option to completely bail out.  Once your through that threshold, it's do or die.  I guess you have to be there to understand.  You'll just never get it until there is someone on the other side of that wall, actually armed and determined to kill you.  If he is actually in the next room, but has a mouse hole into the room your flooding, limited penetration is the best way to deal with the situation.

Particularly when training tactically minded civilians or "reservists", limited penetration tactics is the way to go.  They may not have the discipline that "professionals" have to not turn and run back through the door when they start taking rounds.  

But please, carry on.  Never mind my heresy.

Such as?




It'd make sense that you'd see it in LEO circles since its common place for LEOs to visually clear as much of a room as possible from outside the room prior to making entry during standard building searches.




All depends on the situation.

TonyF, I couldn't agree more.  I have never hid behind a pseudonym.  Diz is short for Dismuke, as in Michael S.  I have always been out front about who I am and what I'm doing.  Cold war jarhead, gear maker and prepper.  The thing is, with the explosion of info on the internet, guys with no experience chat about things, like they're a 20-year veteran.  I found this to be quite a shock, since back in my time, no one but a vet would know all these kinds of details about this stuff.  And quite frankly it pisses me off when kids with no experience  gob on about it, like they are your equal, since they play "call of duty" and so forth.  But that's the world we live in.  The kids today think they're all that and a bag of chips.

As to the OP, you know, I think it's good to examine new techniques, and see if they don't apply to you and your particular sit.  If you think it makes sense, try it out.  If not, drive on with your own thing.  I think it's obvious that SOME folks are using this, whether just on the QT, as something they defaulted to in the situation, or as something others are now teaching a viable technique to begin with.  I mean just because this school, or that unit is doing it, or not, doesn't mean in itself that it's valid, or not.  It either works, or it doesn't.  Only time will tell.

Good discussion guys.

It's not the kids that are like that. It's the guys who think that taking a class or two, or play milsim who are the ones who don't know what they are talking about. It takes recent, verifiable, actual 2 way experience to vett techniques. Simunitions is close but not the definitive test for tactics. Those who are not involved in the daily training, testing, evaluating, or use of these tactics has no validity to discuss those issues.  It doesn't matter who you were in 1982 or when ever or what part time SWAT or National Guard job you have. If it is not your FULL TIME profession, then as Randy Watts put it, you're a hobbist.

I know this post will cause some butthurt. I'm not calling anyone out by name but if you feel the shoe fits, then lace it up and wear it.

Eh, yeah, kinda harsh, but true.  To me the definition of a hobbyist is someone who is doing this as a dress-up game, or competition.  If you are a serious student of the combat arts, and are training for real world encounters, calling that person a hobbyist is kinda harsh but if that's where you want to go, drive on.  

After spending the day with full-time professionals at a recent class (see my AAR), I learned quite a bit about T,T,P's, especially in an urban environment.  I plan on incorporating much of what I learned into my training program.  Now if you want to call that being a hobbyist, go right ahead, I don't really give a shit.  I'm not doing it as a hobby, so I don't view it that way, but you full-time guys can poke fun at all us slimy civilians if you like.   We can take it.

The difference, in my mind, is when that person tries to set himself up as a SME in these matters.  That's where I think you run into problems, as you referred to.  You see this all the time on-line; I call it being cool by association.  These guys think they can take a couple of Larry Vickers classes, hang out at some tactic-cool forum, and now are the equivalent of tier one door kickers.  When someone says something different from the party line, they feel free to shred the offender, as an official representative of their Guru.  So yeah, I couldn't agree with you more; there are many folks out there who are talking out their ass, in the name of their Big Daddy, Whateverhisnameis.    

Now on the other hand, if someone takes a class from a guy who IS a SME, and you try and share some things you learned with others, who might not have the opportunity that you did, then that's a different deal.  There can be legitimate discussions about what different instructors are doing, without getting into all this crap.  Jus because you're not full-time doesn't mean you can't train and learn this stuff, or, share it with others, as long as you do it in the right way.  Which would be in the spirit of sharing info, for other's consideration, rather than jamming your opinion down someone else's throat.

Yeah. Good intentions isn't a profession.  Most civilians that discuss tactics do have good intentions but are not out actually doing them. This is why the vetting of tactics is left to those who actually do them, not simply wish to do. Discuss ideas & philosophies and such....of course. But opinions about validity are not the area for the vast majority of civilians. It's not a mil vs civi issue.   It's simply for the fact that the military and some full time LE teams get into fights using these tactics almost daily compared to only a few civilians that do occasionally.

Lots of noise about which units are doing what, and that is really beside the point.

The reason I posted the article is to point out a no-shit professional opinion (one of several I've heard or read) on this subject that seems to be specifically relevant to civilians.  What Delta or SEAL Team 6 is doing really doesn't matter a flip to ME (or most civvies, or most cops, or most mil guys who are kicking doors in the current war) because Delta and SEAL Team 6 and their ilk are highly specialized units that spend more hours training in a week than most of the rest of us will spend in a year.

At my level of skill, fitness, training, etc, if I was ever called on to participate in a gunfight inside a building, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I will NOT be breaching anything and storming in blind with a team of highly trained razor-edged professionals (unless I happen to have a few SEALs drop by my house with a crate full of grenades and C4 and beg me to help 'em out).  I will be clearing as much as I can from outside the room.  Bulletproof walls would be nice, but even if it's just studs and drywall, at least it's concealment.  You can play a "what if" guessing game all day with endless possible scenarios, but think about it.  If you're ONE guy, or maybe 2 guys, why would you NOT pie the doorway and engage whatever you can from outside?  Even coloccw pointed out that cops do it that way all the time.

A hostage rescue scenario is a different situation, executed by highly trained full-time professionals.  A fast breach, flashbang, and then everybody rushes in to overwhelm resistance makes total sense there...  Okay, if a bad guy is in my kid's room in the wee hours, I'd storm in there and do whatever I could in a "dynamic entry", but then I'm in the papa bear don't give a shit mode, which is not really relevant to the overall discussion here.

Anyway, I think there's a lot of "my way is the only way" poo-flinging here that is akin to one guy saying his way to play baseball is better than the other guy's way to play football.  

-By this logic none of us unless we are "current high speed operators" are competent to even pick our own training.
But we are, we listen to what the different trainers say and pick one whose curriculum most closely aligns with our PoU (if we do it properly).

I for one have little interest in learning to be a better AR driver or transition dancer even if the guy teaching it is the best in the country.
80% of that I can practice on my own on a square range.

What I do want instead is the highest pay-off training.. and that is Small Unit tactics for my team.

- Also just because someone was deployed a couple times even with good units does not mean his experience is not anecdotal. or that in any way it fits what I need to learn to defend my retreat

- Aaaand even if a man is a god of Light Infantry Tactics it doesnt mean he is qualified to teach them.

- If I had my druthers I would rather have a competent light infantryman with a knack for teaching who makes an effort to understand the most likely environment his students train for.. than a guy full of umpteen patches and  oh BTW  who trains his .civ students (and I count all former .mil such as myself as .civs as I do 100% of current active LEO, they are also "civilians")  for .gov PoUs that are often a misdirection.

When will the armed civilian REALLY need his AR15? For  a burglar?  Meh. most of us on here can handily overmatch the average couple of burglars with our handguns...

AR15 are for when the chips are really down , when you need to operate in tactical situations in a post-collapse environment.
And thats where the synergy of Buddy teams and Fireteams is incredible powerful.

This is harder to train ..so a lot of current trainers dont seem to bother with it and instead focus on the fun youtube friendly techniques.

- Or to put it another way. I much rather train and learn from a quality Light Infantry E-6 with zero patches who focuses on solid Small Unit Tactics than a multi tabbed rock Star who is focused on mostly on just driving the AR and who is beholden to the SWAT paradigm.

maybe if it wasnt in 5 point italics it would be readable. I want to read it but F that tiny wall of text.  



 

One guy? No hostages? Why is he clearing the building?


One guy? Family unsecured inside? Flow through to family.

You know, in theory I agree with what colccw is saying.  The guy who is full-time, with current, relevant experience is the most qualified to comment on T,T,P's.  However, the reality of the situation is that violence may visit anyone of us, in any form.  A soldier or LEO is not the only one subject to the threat.  Regardless of who is most qualified to comment on these things, there are many folks out there with varying degrees of experience that have valid things to say.  Unfortunately, there are also many folks that are full of shit.  This is the essence of a free society, where anyone can express his opinion, for whatever it may be worth.  They key to this whole affair is being able to filter the info and only take away what's truly valid.  One way is to draw an arbitrary line, or standard and say only anyone meeting this has the right to comment.  And yeah, that will work, but it also misses a lot, IMHO.  Another, and more practical way, would be to take in info form a variety of sources, analyze it, and based on your life experiences draw your own conclusions as to what may or may nor apply to you.

Just because it doesn't come from a credentialed, government source, does not mean it's not valid.  The very essence of asymmetrical warfare is the "untrained" criminal or insurgent, pitted against the highly trained government agent.  So there is the other side to that coin.   I'm sure you could learn a lot from them, if they were talking.   Not only that, but many (honest) guys who don't meet the suggested criteria have experience in violent encounters that might prove useful to someone else.  To throw all that away because of some arbitrary standard is foolish, IMHO.

So while technically, the guy who does this stuff every day for a living, may "own" this technique, and be most qualified to comment on it, to say no one else is qualified to weigh in on these matters is rather arrogant.  There are many "hobbyists" out there with as much, if not more, experience than a lot of active duty types.  This is the same kind of shit our fore-fathers heard from the King's men.  And we kicked their asses.  I don't know why the citizen soldier is any less valid of a concept now.        
                   

 

Please tell me when an American citizen has used these tactics since the 1860s... I'm not saying that we shouldnt learn them, but it has been 170 years since civilians (hobbist) had experience.

Would you consider yourself qualified to discuss the validity of medical procedures if you hadn't attended medical school and had not preformed them?  Would you trust someone to teach you medical procedures or perform them on you that was a hobbist?  What kind of attitude do you think the licensed medical providers would have towards the unlicensed hobbyist?  What then Is the difference between standards for medical TTP evaluation and movement TTP evaluation?

I think your frame of reference is wrong.  So called "hobbyists" have fought in every war or little dust-up since that time period.  Especially the last war where reservists and the Guard were used extensively.  What about civilian contactors?  What about reserve LEO's?  Or really anyone who has experience in a firefight, whether it was "government sanctioned" or not.  What about first responders?  Do you really think there will be LEO's or soldiers around for every active shooter event?    

Medical T,T,P's?  It may very well come down to that.  You may have only an EMT or Paramedic available in your group.  So yeah, you do the best you can, with what you have. And yes, you may die.  That's just the deal.  You do the best you can with what's available.    

My point being that we may not always have your government trained experts to rely on.  So do you just give up because you don't have government trained experts, or do you drive on?  It's not perfect by any means, but it's what we've always done.  

Some folks seem to be stuck in this concept of if ain't government sanctioned, it ain't shit.  Well, I beg to differ.  Americans have been making-do with what they have for a long time.  Maybe this current crop has forgotten about that, but there's still some hardy folks left out there.

We've always been citizen soldiers.  And active duty types have always looked down their noses at us.  Just because they're are many full-time guys that are really good, does not mean there are no part-time or hobby guys that are really good.  

The point of who's really good is just about irrelevant right now.  What is the chance of enemy contact right now?  It's probably higher than any time in the last 50 years.  When it goes down, the first responder will have to fight, and do the best he can.  And yes, we may die.  So you can smugly tells us I told you so.  But regardless of critiques, we will fight and defend ourselves.  And if we want to talk about it, we will.

I think you missed the point and and only read what you wanted to read from it. I'll make it more clear:

No one is saying that you shouldn't learn the tactics. What I am saying is that hobbyists (anyone who doesn't do this for a living) have no current experience in the tactics other than what someone else has told them, and therefore have no place to discuss the validity of those tactics.  There are a lot of hobbyists who are very passionate about what they've learned and that is exactly what instructors want in students however some are trying to justify being out of their experience base by claiming it's their right to do so. While the last part may be true it is also my right to say otherwise and my responsibility as an instructor to call out the BS.

The reference to the medical community is to show that they have very stringent standards on who can evaluate their field's TTPs. Even practicing outside your trained and vetted scope is a criminal act. So why doesn't the training industry have the same standards and mindset towards the hobbyists stepping way out of their lane?

And again I say:

The context in which the building is being cleared influeces how it is done. If you are operating in a military/LE type situation then it makes sense to look at what the PhDs are/arent doing and why.

Agreed.  

Context is what I meant with the baseball vs. football comparison.  "fighting in built up areas" is NOT the same as "hostage rescue", and obviously TTP's between those activities would vary.  Ex: Marines in Falluja back off and have a tank or TOW level the building.  Not a great idea to do the same thing to a building where a psycho (or small group of them) is/are holding a bunch of hostages.... and certainly not the same thing as a civilian caught up in an "active shooter" event, or fighting some home invader, or simply moving through a high threat area for whatever reason during a SHTF event like Katrina or the LA riots.

My point is that civilians, lone cops, pairs of good guys with or without uniforms, engage in gunfights with bad guys in and around buildings all the time.  The original article I posted is absolutely relevant to that.  Maybe not so much to highly specialized hostage rescue or prisoner snatch type operations.

baseball vs. football.

Then what is the point of your post? You post the defense of a tactic for military clearing by a military professional then get upset when military trainers comment? To To use your analogy, you are claiming "football vs baseball" while posting all "football" videos and getting responses from football experts yet you're looking for baseball answers. Perhaps you should redo your post with explanations and videos of techniques from "baseball"  people who do what you are discussing on a daily basis. There are lots of discussions about 1-2 man limited entry clearance from patrol officers that do them every day.  

Can you please edit the Op so that its not italicized. I feel like I'm having a stroke.

I know at least one guy that retired from the (active duty) military,  got and retired again from a prison job, went over seas as a contractor for a decade, and is now back working corrections.  He is old, but still spry and will probably work a tough job until the day he dies.

I'm not a top tier operator, SWAT shooter, or even just your basic LEO, I'm a straight up Civi. Take this for what it's worth however I think that limited penetration clearing makes a lot more sense for the vast majority of room clearing operations than rapid entry. As pointed out earlier, while you might not be behind cover you at least are using the available concealment to your advantage. I also think this guys argument about it being better suited to normal human reaction makes sense.

Take a look at some of the SWAT responses shown in the OP. The first guy rushes in, the shooting starts, and the next guy stalls, leaving the first guy rushing into a room with no backup. Doesn't this completely defeat the purpose of the whole rapid entry thing, to get as many friendly guns in the room as fast as possible?

Never the less, I can definitely see a need for both techniques. After reading this thread, I went and cleared an AR and started clearing my house using only the limited penetration technique (don't laugh ) I live in a very old adobe house, with very narrow halls, doorways, and a slightly odd layout. There were a number of narrow points where I felt like even working by myself rapid entry would be more appropriate so as not to get caught up in a small space with very limited mobility. There were places where I would have had to practically enter the room to even bring a 14.5 up to high ready. I could see this being compounded by having multiple people in a small area, or in nodes where you could receive fire from multiple uncleared locations but only have room for one person.

I have a feeling that like everything, the answer is "it depends." A few years back I came back from class and found someone that had broken into my house. I was carrying groceries and was struggling to open the front door. When I got it open, I looked up and saw a figure hauling ass out of the back door. I drew my G19 and backed out the door and onto the porch. After examining the situation, I figured that it was likely one person, since I hadn't heard him trying to communicate with an accomplice, that he had come in and fled through the back door, hadn't been there more than a minute or two since all of my roomate's and mine's computers and other expensive shit in the living room was undisturbed from what I could see, and that the threat was likely over. Never the less I chose to check the house through myself. I can say that I was definitely using limited penetration, without consciously thinking about it. It's just what my body defaulted to under the circumstances.

Here are some questions:

Should a Direct Action oriented Infantry Unit conduct CQB the same way as a Hostage Rescue Unit?

Should a Special Forces ODA enter and clear a room like a Metro SWAT doing a narcotics raid?

Should I clear my house from my master bedroom like an SAS 4-Man Team would take down a hut in Mali?

Should a Tier 1 unit enter and clear a building for a hostage rescue mission the same way they would for an HVT hit with a Kill/Capture mission statement?

Should a civilian go straight to CQB before learning basic SUT's at the Fire Team and Squad levels?

Can quality CQB be taught without a foundation in Infantry Tactics?

There is one legit answer to all of these questions:  NO.

What I gathered from your posts, was that while I, as a civilian, can and should seek training and am capable of learning techniques, I am not qualified to critique the instructor and techniques being presented. In other words, I have no frame of reference to determine if I am learning techniques that are effective. In today's youtube/internet culture it can be hard to separate effective/good from simply popular.

When picking an instructor I try to look at credentials, effectiveness of his teaching, and whether the techniques tend to focus on things that reliable and repeatable and focus on accuracy over speed.

Your medical reference is significant. Actually, as physicians (which I am), we are constantly critiqued by administrators, politicians, and patients. They do so with no medical training at all. So yeah, I feel your frustration.

Do you have any advice for what to look for when seeking training?

You're in MS. Watch for any training opportunities with RustedAce.

You forgot the most relevant question: Should anyone be attempting to learn tactics from YouTube videos?   Again, no.  No professional instructor would present a limited scope video and base tactics on that scenario.  Videos of tactics are for AARs and review, not presenting new untested ideas.