Wait, I get it. They try to reduce their exposure to the cross upon entry / slicing the pie.

The majority of people will do a fancy transition either just before, during or after they move through the threshold (A critical moment of itself) normally once they crossed they will start transitioning back again to their default shoulder, essentially dismissing any kind of ready to shoot position.

Issues with Switching shoulders in Room entry context.

•  Multi tasking – Additional cognitive & motorical processes in addition to what we normally use (in short explanation). Multitasking can result in time wasted due to human context switching and apparently causing more errors due to insufficient attention.  During entry it is unrealistic to expect a human being to do 10 things at once. Non behavior complaint. You will go away with it in calm settings, but not in reality.

• Response – Reducing significantly the ability to be responsive to any target while transitioning, not only because of handling but also due to the body posture and mechanics, and the offset of the gun.

• Stoppage – In case of a stoppage, the brain will require a longer time to process the problem (IDing the stoppage) and deliver a motorial solution which is already known for the user, but this time done from, let’s call it different prospective. (Think of it as a mirror confusion).

• Weapon retention –  Up to discussion, but it is often sloppy when reacting from 3 m below to opponent with a cold weapon or someone running outside of the room. Especially since 3 m is basically the combative bubble. 100% retention of the weapon is crucial.

Issues with switching shoulders behind cover / barricade in close proximity to threat.

In addition to the mentioned above, IF the threat is imminent, aware & fixated on you in extreme close proximity, mobility & consistency takes priority over cover (dependable) . Shoulder transitions in such situations are nothing but a dogmatic fixation of 1 +1 equals 2. Wasting time on weapon manipulations that are not related to the functionality of the gun will not help and will only offer disadvantage, and besides it is against your instincts.

Summary.

Once our brain perceives danger, one circuit lays out sensory information about the danger, for example the sight of a gunshot victim or the sound of someone racking a pistol slide, to the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain.

The cerebral cortex evaluates this information and makes a rational judgment about it (based on several factors, including level of experience VS training).

The other circuit relays the sensory information to the amygdala, which sends impulses to the autonomic nervous system. This system triggers something we identify as acute stress response (aka fight, flight, freeze”) even before the cerebral cortex (as mentioned above, the thinking part of our brain) has made sense of the information.

Once activated, it increases heart rate, routes blood to muscles, releases stress hormones and glucose into the bloodstream among other sets of ongoing physiological changes, all to ensure your ability to handle this edge situation. But what is more interesting for us in the tactical context is, that today we know that self-preservation in fact overrides training. It simply means that during high – mid stress situations several areas, especially the long-term memory of the brain, does not get deactivated. In simple English it means that under stress you will retract to the most experienced and rewarding skill / tool that you trained and you are familiar with. Nothing sexy or fancy, just default.

6.Validate your tactics.

Did you know that the majority of CQB concepts that are being taught as a default were never studied or validated entirely by empirical research to actually back up what those tactics claim to achieve?

Now you know.

In other words, it means those concepts were taught and developed by individual knowledge sources and not by an empirical research.

These sources likely to include a combination of intuition, personal experience, tradition, and authority. So what’s the problem, you are asking? The problem is that it essentially means that this knowledge could either be correct due to a feedback given in real world setting (for example, performing a raid against and armed active threat who decided to shoot) or inaccurate bias feedback that the person unintentionally views as correct due to the fact that he never met actual resistance to his chosen tactics due to inappropriate training framework (lack of FOF, stimulus, etc.). Eventually it means that the common tactics that are not validated through empirical research has 50% chance of being correct or wrong. 50% means broken. Have you seen a phone with a screen that does not work but is still being used? Nope, because it is broken.

Below are 4 extremely important videos that we use to highlight Tactic VS Behavior. Note that the common principle for all those videos is that the immediate use of dynamic entries collapses within as the earliest signs of resistance are encountered. Note the shift into survival based improvisation. No concept.

https://youtu.be/-uLAQfme6n4

The issue I have with the Western, standard CQB tactics (dynamic immediate entries by default for example) is that it is a concept technically developed & practiced against paper targets in a symmetric range setting, trying desperately to match up with reality.

In reality, violent collision like a firefight (I remind you, CQB context!)  is a very raw, extremely dynamic & horrifying event which last normally a matter of seconds. In those seconds, the threat is moving, taking decisions on the fly that are rooted deep in different psychological mechanisms or behavior patterns that will result in an unexpected behavior that might not be expected in comparisons to the average ‘’good guy’’ motivations or in simple, the way he perceives interaction with opponents (take Terrorism / Suicidal VS Crime, for example).

With that being said, it is crucial if not mandatory that every tactic should be going through a physical, reward training validation process whether it is a student picking up a new way of doing things in a basic course or whether it is an instructor tweaking up a method, etc.

Running into a kill house with paper targets and doing all those tactical training, slick badass movements is just something that is not going to happen. There is enough evidence, not only my own experience, but dozen of debriefs and videos.

Summary.

You learned something new? Test it w/ performance with realistic parameters. Don’t let people summarize a procedure with 10 minutes talking and one hour shooting on the same target on the same corner on the same role. It is all about human feedback, not paper  and smoke and mirror.

Thank you for reading,

Stay tuned to the next part !

Project Gecko is a company which specializes in the field of Tactical Training & consultant services. Their capabilities ranges from setting up Tactical courses & projects to consultant services. During their courses Gecko instructors give their participants the mental and physical tools for their personal success.

They offer a wide spectrum of programs that take place in one day classes, three-days-seminars, and events up to one week. All those programs are based and created on their knowledge which they unpack and repack in a way that will suit every participant. For Gecko the gear is just a tool and the will is the key. Gecko believes that every person who has the will, will find his place in their seminars and workshops.

The instructors behind Project Gecko are all former military personal with extended training’s and combat experience. Eliran founder of Project Gecko  was born in Israel. Before he moved to Germany he served in the IDF in one of the SF units.

Find out more about Project Gecko 

[jetpack_subscription_form]