One attraction of the podcast was that many episodes focused critical attention on gun training:

• 20: “Combat proven vs. theory based training”
• 32: “Calling bullshit on dangerous training doctrine”
• 35: “Scenario-based and so-called ‘scientific’ shooting methods”
• 36: “CQB for civilians… really?”
• 42: “So called ‘advanced classes’ – are they worth the money?”

Commonalities and differences in the defensive firearms training community is something I have been interested in for some time now.

Another attraction of the podcast was the fact that, although I knew Lee Williams’s writing, I had never heard of Bob Keller before. This surprised me because I have spent a good part of my time studying gun culture looking at the gun training (cottage) industry, especially the past couple of years.

I don’t think of this as a criticism as Keller as much as of my own limited perspective.

A few episodes in, some common themes began to emerge in the way that Williams and Keller spoke of how civilian firearms training is done and how it should be done. After about 10 episodes, I had heard enough to want to ask Williams and Keller to clarify some points, which I did in an email to Williams.

The following summarizes what I heard on their podcast, their specific responses to my questions (on Episode 46 of the Think, Aim, Fire podcast, 27 September 2018), and an interview with Keller I found on Arik Levy’s Firearms Nation Podcast (#059, 21 April 2018). I imagine more could be gathered also from Keller’s Pantaeo Productions DVD, but I have not watched that yet.

(1) First, Keller distinguishes between firearms training pre- and post-9/11. I had never heard anyone make this distinction before so was interested in learning more about it.

Especially in his interview with Arik Levy, Keller explains that he bases this distinction on his experience training as an Army Ranger before and after 9/11. He suggests that his training underwent a fundamental shift after 9/11, and that this shift needs to be integrated into civilian gun training as well.

The reason I had not heard of this shift before, Williams said in answer to my question, is because “there hasn’t been a big post-9/11 shift in civilian training. Bob is on the cutting edge here, leading the way, trying to get other instructors to stop using bad theory[-based] technique.”

I am not expert in military combat training, but I find Keller’s description of the change in his own training pre- and post-9/11 very interesting. After all, plenty of people had engaged in combat prior to 9/11. The notion of “combat shooting” is certainly not new. But perhaps it is the case that the way our military trained for combat after 9/11 changed in a fundamental way? And in a way that has implications of civilian firearms training?

(2) Which leads to their second major point: the distinction between combat proven and theory-based training. Keller argues that his pre-9/11 training incorporated theory-based techniques, and that post-9/11 training centers on combat proven techniques.

Theory-based techniques refer to those that are taught but have not been proven in combat. According to Keller, “Until you’ve been in a bunch of [actual combat] situations, you only know what you know, right? So you’re trying to come up with things you think are going to work in a gunfight.”

After you’ve been in a bunch of gunfights, you know what is going to work – these are the combat proven techniques. Again, Keller suggests that civilian gun training needs to incorporate this shift from theory-based to combat proven techniques.

(3) The implication of the two preceding points is that proper civilian gun training should be based in post-9/11, combat proven techniques, which Williams and Keller refer to as “current doctrine.”

In response to my request for clarification of this doctrine, Williams referred to a book-in-progress that will outline its tenets. But in listening to the podcast, the basic teachings seem to be:

(A) The central importance of mastery of the basics. “Fast forward to post-9/11, having been in a lot of situations,” Keller observes, “the one thing that was always the constant was bringing the gun up, getting sight picture, and pulling the trigger.”

(B) Training, therefore, must be oriented to mastery of these basics. “There’s not much to it other than getting rid of all the fluff,” Keller insists. “The only thing that really mattered was being able to shoot. So it’s not like there’s any frickin’ secret to it. It’s just getting rid of all the crap that really isn’t needed in a range session, and doing the stuff that is the constant, which is shooting. Being able to get the gun up, get sight picture, and pull the trigger. That never goes away. That has to happen.”

Consequently, the centerpiece of Keller’s training courses are basic “ready, up” drills on a square range. He contrasts his boring, back-to-basics approach to training to “so-called ‘advanced classes,’” scenario-based training, CQB for civilians, and other forms of edu-trainment that are largely designed to get students to enroll in courses and make money for the instructors.

Hearing Keller describe the importance of static range training designed to ingrain the ability to get the gun up, get sight picture, and pull the trigger, reminded me of the week I spent at Gunsite Academy observing the venerable 250 Defensive Pistol Course. Students in that course spent hours practicing the basics of gunhandling and marksmanship, including showing up at the range at 0700 (an hour earlier than normal due to the excessive June heat) to dry practice their presentations from the holster for 10 or 15 minutes, and then spending six hours at the range shooting disciplined drills as the ground temperature rose to 140 degrees.

So I wonder to what extent Keller’s “current doctrine” represents a re-branding of the old doctrine known as the Modern Technique of the Pistol, codified by Col. Jeff Cooper decades ago?

Admittedly, I have not seen Keller teach so I don’t know if there are ways in which his “current doctrine” represents a fundamental break from old doctrines. But it does seem to me that, like many current instructors and Gunsite Academy itself, he is standing on the shoulders of giants.

“We stand on the shoulders of giants. That’s why we are able to see so far.” – Tom Givens

As I noted in an earlier post, part of which is repeated here, Givens is drawing on an aphorism commonly attributed to Sir Isaac Newton who said: “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The version of this saying attributed to Newton is actually a modification in substance and meaning from the original. In his Metalogicon (1159), John of Salisbury attributes the original saying to Bernard of Chartres:

“Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentis, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum subvenimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea”

“Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.”

In the original, the emphasis was on the contemporary being a drawf in relation to the giant size predecessor, while the Newtonian version accents more the contemporary’s superior vision.

Either way, in the gun training industry, the giant upon whose shoulders contemporary pygmies stand is Col. Jeff Cooper. In my travels among gun trainers, I routinely hear the prefatory clauses “As Col. Cooper said…” or “According to Col. Cooper…”

While at Gunsite Academy last year observing the contemporary incarnation of Cooper’s 250 Defensive Pistol course, I watched a video recording from 1981 of Cooper delivering his “Mental Conditioning for Combat” lecture. Several ideas presented by Cooper in that lecture live on today in the gun training industry, including in Tom Givens’s instructor development course.

This way of thinking about private citizen gun training stresses its communal nature, rather than the competitive dimension emphasized by the term I frequently use, gun training industry.

Thought of as a community, there are analogies that can be used to describe private citizen gun trainers other than as standing on the shoulders of giants. “Roots and branches,” for example, is a common way to describe traditions of thought and practice. From a common root, many different branches sprout and grow.

Last year, The Cornered Cat Kathy Jackson posed a question on her Facebook page: “What firearms instructor(s) have had the deepest / best impact on you as a shooter (and perhaps as a person)?” It generated a list of over 100 names. With enough of that sort of information, we could create a very interesting picture of the roots and branches in the gun training community.

Of course, the “roots and branches” analogy is very similar to another analogy: the “family tree.” This way we can think of Cooper as father of the civilian gun training industry and the many children he has spawned, and their children, and so on. Younger trainers that Tom Givens has mentored like John Hearne, Tiffany Johnson, and Lee Weems are, in this sense, Jeff Cooper’s grandchildren.

Of course, if Cooper is the father of the civilian gun training industry, then he too has ancestors. I am not an historian of shooting, but Karl Rehn has been working through historical shooting instruction books in preparation for teaching an historical handgun course. (Editorial aside: I MUST TAKE!)

Rehn has already found that a lot of what is said about shooting today has been said before.

Like Bernard of Chartres said, giants and pygmies. Or more generously, following Newton, on the shoulders of giants.

As with so many gun training courses, the class begins with a safety briefing, a medical briefing, and an administrative briefing.

As the first day goes on, Suarez covers a number of many elements of the Modern Technique, often with his own particular spin.

Stance Position

Suarez advocates a shooting position rather than a stance, which he thinks connotes “stationary.”

“Get in position like you’re going to get in a fistfight,” he suggests. “Your body will take care of it. You want to shoot Weaver, go ahead. It doesn’t matter. Everyone will have their own position. You don’t fit the system, the system fits you. Some schools make you get in a box. We don’t.”

Suarez spends 3 minutes total on the topic.

Flash Sight Picture?

In terms of sight alignment and sight picture, Suarez departs from the Modern Technique’s “flash sight picture” when he discusses Fairbairn and Sykes’ Shooting to Live, which advocates point shooting. Suarez tells the students to take a magazine out and point it at someone. “Do we need a sight picture in an elevator?” “No,” he answers his own question, mockingly covering his mouth with his hand like he accidentally let everyone in on an important secret.

Continuing on, Suarez maintains, “Sights don’t align the gun, they verify alignment.” The further away from your target you are, the more you need to use the sights – especially a strong front sight focus – to verify. While close up you can point shoot with 2 eyes open, further back why you need a more precise sight alignment and sight picture, you close one eye.

(Note: On point shooting close up and sighted fire from further back, Suarez sounds exactly like Rob Pincus’s Combat Focus Shooting methodology.)

Compressed Surprise Break?

Suarez doesn’t use the language of the compressed surprise break, but he does teach the students to take up the slack on the trigger then continue to add pressure until the gun fires.

Suarez uses a conventional approach to teaching this, one I experienced when I took Massad Ayoob’s MAG-40 course. One at a time, Suarez has students align their sights and then he pulls the trigger for them. Next, he has the students align their sights and put their own finger on the trigger, then Suarez puts his own finger on top of theirs and pulls the trigger for them. Last, the students align their sights and pull the trigger themselves.

Presentation

Having practiced these aspects of marksmanship from the compressed ready position (which Suarez favors over the low ready position taught at Gunsite), he moves on to the presentation. His presentation is simplified from the one taught at Gunsite, consisting of just three (or four) steps, depending on how you count.

Suarez describes the presentation process as “grip, clap, point,” though it might be thoughts of as “grip, pull, clap, point.” In any event, Suarez suggests taking the sharp angles out of the traditional draw and emphasizes drawing the gun like a “J” not at a right angle. This is a simpler, more fluid draw stroke than others.

In terms of re-holstering, Suarez is emphatic about looking the gun into the holster. “If threat is still present,” he reminds the students, “you are not re-holstering so there’s no need to worry about taking your eyes off the threat.”

Already here we see some of the very traditional aspects of gunhandling and marksmanship that Gabe Suarez teaches in his Pistol Gunfighting School, albeit with some twists in new directions. In my upcoming posts, I will further discuss the distinctiveness of Suarez’s contemporary take on civilian firearms training, highlighting the ways in which he makes more radical departures from the conventional approach.

My experience is not as substantial as many others’, but it seems to me based on my observations so far that what we see in the mainstream of the gun training industry is not a leaving behind of the Modern Technique (post-modernism) but an updating of the Modern Technique (neo-modernism).

This makes sense because so much of the expanding tree of gun trainers traces its roots back to Col. Jeff Cooper. Many are either students of Cooper (direct or indirect), or students of Cooper’s students (direct or indirect). At least on the national level.

Gabriel (Gabe) Suarez is a case in point. As Cooper is revered by most and Suarez reviled by many, finding the connection between them was fascinating.

Suarez trained at Gunsite under Cooper, and Cooper thought enough of Suarez that he wrote the Foreword to his book, The Tactical Pistol (1996).

More recently, when I observed one of Suarez’s gun training courses, the influence of Cooper and the Modern Technique on Suarez was evident. As my next few posts will show, Suarez today is essentially teaching the New Modern Technique of the Pistol, or Modern Technique Version 2.0.

In early November, I traveled to Prescott, Arizona to observe a Suarez International Pistol Gunfighting School.

I had been to the Suarez International offices earlier in the year, stopping by before my week at Gunsite. I did not meet Suarez then and only exchanged a few brief emails with him to arrange my observation. When I arrived at the Yavapai Recreation League range in the Prescott National Forest Friday morning about 15 minutes before class, I found Suarez organizing his materials under a large canopy. His sunglasses hung from the collar of his t-shirt and so as I approached I could clearly see his eyes were not the demonic red I had half-expected from reading about him. I introduced myself and Suarez welcomed me generously and with a smile that I would see often over the three days of the class.

Jeff Cooper codified the Modern Technique of the Pistol based on what he learned from the South West Pistol League’s leather slap competitions in California. Gabe Suarez created his version of the New Modern Technique by combining the Modern Technique with what he learned from actual gunfights as a police officer in California.

Like the Gunsite Academy 250 Defensive Pistol Course, the overall framework of Suarez’s Pistol Gunfighting School is provided by the Combat Triad. Although Suarez did not use this language during the course I observed, he follows Cooper closely in The Tactical Pistol when he writes, “The operator must have a firm understanding of marksmanship, gunhandling, and mind-set. These three equally important components make up what is called the ‘combat triad’” (p. ix-x).

Suarez calls them “equally important,” but in both the book and in his Pistol Gunfighting Class, the combat mindset is first among equals.

What has been lost in terms of the combat mindset at Gunsite Academy has made its way down the Chino Valley from Paulden to Prescott and landed at Suarez International.

In his Foreword to The Tactical Pistol, Jeff Cooper observes that the “proper mindset . . . enables one to triumph in a deadly encounter.” He also maintains, “Only a man who has been there – ‘seen the elephant’ – really knows if he can employ the principles of marksmanship when he is faced with a deadly enemy who is trying to kill him.” Cooper then praises Gabe Suarez as “particularly well-qualified to write the book that you are about to read, because he is not only a fine shot, as he has demonstrated to me several times at Old Gunsite, but he has also shown that he can employ his high order of skill when the chips are down. Gabe has seen success in combat several times in our ongoing war against crime.” Therefore, he concludes, “I can think of no one better able to tell you how it is done” (p. v).

In the book, Suarez returns the compliment by dedicating the entire first substantive chapter to “Getting Your Mind Right” in which he discusses Cooper’s color codes of awareness. Suarez writes, “Unquestionably the most valuable lesson that I learned from Col. Jeff Cooper was the color code and the development of the subsequent combat mind-set” (p. 7).

Emphasizing the primacy of mindset and his indebtedness to Cooper, Suarez introduces his book with a quote from John Steinbeck’s posthumously published novel, The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights (1976). The quote was made popular in gun culture by Cooper; so popular, in fact, that I just saw the passage in full attributed to Clint Smith on another gun website:

“This is the law. The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain, all else is supplementary” (p. 193).

The passage is actually spoken by Steinbeck’s character Lyne, a 60-year old woman who goes on a quest with one of the noble knights, Ewain, and teaches him how to fight along the way.

Again taking off from Steinbeck via Cooper, Suarez later wrote a book called The Final Weapon, which he inscribed to me with his motto, “Shoot ’em to the ground.”

From the start of the Pistol Gunfighting School, Suarez emphasizes the importance of a combat mindset. Just a few minutes into the course, he holds up a gun and asks his 20 students, “What is this?” They respond in unison, “A gun.” Suarez continues, “What is this for?” At least half the class responds immediately, “Killing.” “All right,” Suarez responds with a smile. “We just saved 15 minutes of lecture. Let’s get to work.”

Later in the same session, he declares with gravity, “We live in a time of war. 2017 America.” How we respond to that reality makes all the difference, and is all about mindset. “American gun people are way too afraid. THEY need to be afraid of US.”

Suarez then poses another question to his students: “Who wants to kill the bad guy?” All raise their hands and some vocalize their assent. “Good,” Suarez says, smiling again. “We can just discuss marksmanship.”

As I show in my next post, Suarez does in fact discuss marksmanship, as well as gunhandling as part of his overall Pistol Gunfighting School. But always in the context of the combat mindset that he establishes from the start and reinforces throughout.

Of the three parts of the Combat Triad, the Gunsite 250 course I observed emphasized gunhandling and marksmanship far more than mindset. For the most part, the combat mindset part of the triad was restricted to a 45 minute lecture on Wednesday afternoon by Rangemaster Bill Halvorsen. I understand that this is the traditional day and time for “the mindset lecture”; my point more concerns the confinement of the combat mindset to that classroom session.

In the original codification, at least in the book by Gregory Boyce Morrison, mind-set was called “the key component of the combat triad.” He continues:

“It transcends all other factors involved in the learning, practice and application of the Modern Technique. In short, one must develop a proper mental disposition toward safety, weapon management, and marksmanship concerns as well as the willingness to use deadly force against violent aggression.”

Suggesting again its importance, the first chapter of the first part of The Modern Technique of the Pistol is a reprint of an article on “The Combat Mind-Set” by Jeff Cooper originally published in American Handgunner. Here, Cooper simply and clearly defines mindset as:

“that state of mind which insures victory in a gunfight.”

Which explains why Cooper’s longer formulation of mindset is “mental conditioning for combat.”

So, although the combat triad is often rendered in such a way as to suggest each of the three parts are equivalent (as in the diagram above from the 250 Pistol course book), I rather think the way the triad is portrayed on the Jeff Cooper Foundation Coin is more in line with the original intent: Mindset is the foundation which makes gunhandling and marksmanship necessary and possible.

After all, what are gunhandling and marksmanship for? To win gunfights.

When sociologist James William Gibson attended the American Pistol Institute at Gunsite Ranch in 1988, he described Col. Jeff Cooper as “preaching what he called a ‘philosophy of violence.’” Mastering the “martial art” of the pistol in conjunction with acceptance of the philosophy would transform the students into armed men (Warrior Dreams, p. 174).

That was the explicit curriculum at the time. But Gibson also described what can be called the implicit curriculum – the “unspoken subtext,” in Gibson’s terms – as: “I want to become more powerful through learning to kill.” Following Cooper, Gibson’s Rangemaster Ed Stock referred to the presentation and firing of the pistol as the “killing stroke.” The instructors teaching with Stock said their job was to “mold your bodies to fit the theory,” which Gibson translated into: “transform their students into well-honed weapons by correcting and perfecting each individual movement involved in drawing, aiming, and firing” (Warrior Dreams, pp. 176-77).

What I observed at Gunsite almost 30 years after Gibson was a much less martial ethos. Indeed, I noticed this during my observation because only Rangemaster Steve Hendricks made a point of emphasizing that Gunsite “is a fighting school not a shooting school,” as he put it.

Another time Hendricks reminded the students, “This is a fighting school. If you are shooting tiny groups you are not fighting.” And in emphasizing assessment after shooting, Hendricks again reminded them, “You need to search after like you’re fighting. More and more bad guys are coming in groups of 2 and 3. Tactical mindset folks. This is a gunfight.”

In one of the mini-lectures during water and reloading breaks, Hendricks told his students, expressing a bit of exasperation at having to repeat himself:

“I have discovered through my life the world is a dangerous place. I know for a fact it is. I don’t mean to yell at you, but that is what we’re here for. The mechanics of shooting are easy. The difficult part is fighting. Please enjoy yourself while you’re here. Have fun. But we’re here to learn how to fight with a handgun.”

It is possible that other instructors also used this kind of language and I just missed it, but I spent about 15 hours on each of the two ranges and have no notes on or recollection of it.

Of course, this begs the question as to why the combat is fading from the Combat Triad. Gabe Suarez suggested one possibility to me: “The challenge that Gunsite faces is that it is so tied to its own legacy, which creates expectations on the part of the people who go train there. Some of the martial elements of Cooper’s teaching about mindset are lost in the translation.”

So, what kinds of people take the Gunsite 250 course today? By my count, 24 of 29 attendees the week of my observation were on their “own dime and time.” Gunsite, being Gunsite, can charge $1,695 tuition (plus $450 for a 9mm ammo package) and still get a husband and wife, and a mother, father, and daughter, and an uncle and nephew to attend together – as was the case when I was there.

It can also get guys who are on a “brocation” or “mancation,” and retirees crossing off items from their “bucket list,” which I also saw when I was there.

It can get people looking to become better shooters, and shooting instructors looking to become better teachers.

Certainly some of these people I observed were looking to become civilian warriors. But I don’t think most wanted to be what Suarez told me Cooper wanted: “people with blood on their boots.”

Today, COO Ken Campbell refers to attendees as “clients.” Using language reminiscent of those in the competitive airline industry, he tells his clients, “We know you have choices and we appreciate your spending your training time and dollars with us.” Campbell expresses his appreciation, in part, by making daily appearances at the range with Otter Pops for the students.

Looking at what is taught in the classroom and on the range explicitly gives a good sense of how the heavy-duty pistol and the Weaver stance are handled at Gunsite today.

In the opening lecture of the 250 Defensive Pistol course, Rangemaster Bill Halvorsen – who has taught at Gunsite nearly 30 years, since 1988 – explains that the overall objective of the course is “to ensure you become well-grounded in the Modern Technique of the Pistol.”

He elaborates that part of the Modern Technique involves a heavy-duty pistol, which he says is a .45 ACP, adding the old joke, “Why a .45? Because there is no .46.” I can imagine at the beginning of time, when Col. Cooper was running the course, that the point would end there. Suggesting a clear evolution, Halvorsen continues, “But seriously, use a gun you can control effectively and make hits with. It may be a .22.”

Halvorsen later reiterates the point about the heavy-duty semi-auto pistol saying, “That means whatever you can put rounds on target with.”

To be sure, 4 of 7 instructors the week I observed carried 1911s, and far more students used 1911s than I have ever seen in another class – 7 out of 29 (24%). At the same time, some students who rented guns from Gunsite were given Glocks, and two-thirds of the students shot 9mm pistols.

Thus, although there is a clear preference for the .45ACP 1911, there was no sense spoken or otherwise conveyed that using something other (“less”) than that was somehow insufficient.

As for the Weaver Stance, it is certainly part of the Modern Technique, but Gunsite has evolved on this toward the language of the “fighting stance.” As the course book I was given (dated 2006) reads, “The essence of the modern Weaver Stance is the achievement of a balanced fighting stance” (emphasis in original).

Gunsite 250 instructors use this term both in the lectures and on the range, with one notable exception that I observed. At the first range session of the week, immediately following the introductory lecture, Rangemaster Bill Halvorsen talked to the students individually, checking their guns, holsters, belts, and magazines. He then discussed and demonstrated the stance, saying, “I would ask you to try the Weaver. If you shoot isosceles, work with me.”

On the fifth and last day of the class, Halvorsen continued to suggest the Weaver stance to students who are struggling to shoot well.

Which raises the question, what does Halvorsen mean by “Weaver”?

He definitely does not mean an extremely bladed stance. In a follow-up conversation I had with the other Rangemaster for the week, Steve Hendricks, the issue of the myth of the bladed stance was addressed. Hendricks recalled that even when he was first becoming an instructor at Gunsite back in the early 1990s the stance was more square than bladed. He told me there used to be a cable running across the range and shooters were told to “toe the line.” A photo in the 1991 book, The Modern Technique of the Pistol, supports Hendricks’s recollection.

To be sure, the feet are not perfectly square, but I wouldn’t call the stance bladed.

It seems to me that what many people identify as the “Weaver” stance has to do with the iconic position of the arms, in particular the straighter dominant arm and bent support arm. In reference to a right-handed shooter, the Gunsite course book asserts,

“The right arm may be straight but is better slightly flexed. The left arm is flexed from 30 to 45 degrees depending on the bone structure of the shooter.”

This is the position Halvorsen adopts when he demonstrates the stance, adding that the grip is “push-pull,” with 30% force pushing with the strong hand and 70% pulling with the support hand to help control recoil.

Again, when I spoke to Steve Hendricks about the Weaver stance, he emphasized the importance of creating this isometric push-pull tension as fundamental to the Weaver stance he learned from Cooper. But as shown in the picture below, Hendricks’s stance looks awfully isosceles to my newbie eyes.

Whatever terminology is used, it is clear that on these two aspects of the Modern Technique – the heavy-duty self-loading pistol and the Weaver stance – what is taught at Gunsite Academy has evolved.

In my next post, I will explore another aspect of the curriculum that has evolved, perhaps even more so: mindset.

This is a bit of a touchy subject at Gunsite. As I noted previously, Gunsite COO Ken Campbell often deflects criticism that Gunsite Academy is the “Southwest Dinosaur League” (a derogatory modification of the original “Southwest Combat Pistol League” started by Jeff Cooper), arguing that the curriculum at Gunsite has evolved over time.

Some outsiders recognize this evolution, as well as the challenge of evolving without fundamentally breaking with the foundational doctrine. According to Rob Pincus, “The Modern Technique was bad ass in 1983.” That said, “Even Gunsite has moved on, though they have the weight of legacy hanging over them.”

How much has Gunsite evolved or moved on from the Modern Technique of the Pistol? That depends on how you DEFINE the Modern Technique, what ASPECTS of the Modern Technique you consider, and whether you look at the EXPLICIT curriculum or the IMPLICIT curriculum.

I will take up these questions in 3 or 4 posts based on my observation of the 250 Defensive Pistol course (“The Gunsite Experience”) in June 2017, in particular the opening presentation, the mid-week “mindset lecture,” and the 30 hours I spent on the range with the two groups of students in attendance.

If you identify the Modern Technique with the classic Weaver Stance and a .45ACP 1911 pistol, then Gunsite has moved on quite substantially.

If you look at those as two of the five core elements of the Modern Technique (the other three being the presentation, flash sight-picture, and compressed-surprise break), it has evolved some but not completely.

But if you look at the Modern Technique as a broader whole, the vast majority remains intact. I have taken the outline I posted previously and highlighted in green those parts that are still in evidence in “The Gunsite Experience” in 2017 and in yellow those which are different. As you can see, it is mostly green, with the exception of the Weaver stance and the heavy-duty self-loading pistol. (I leave readiness “Condition 0” white because it seems to be more of an add-on than an integral part of gunhandling in the Modern Technique as codified by Cooper.)

In my next post I consider how the Weaver Stance and the Heavy-duty Self-loading Pistol are treated in the EXPLICIT curriculum, and then I will explore how the combat mindset is treated in the IMPLICIT curriculum at Gunsite today.

If you take the Gunsite Academy 250 Defensive Pistol Course, “The Gunsite Experience,” you will learn the founding curriculum as codified by Col. Cooper, the Modern Technique of the Pistol.

Cooper makes no claim to “inventing” the Modern Technique. Rather, he codified it based on observations he made of the Bear Valley Gunslingers who he credits as the “originators” (Foreword to The Modern Technique of the Pistol by Gregory Boyce Morrison, 1991, p. x).

Although he came from a military background and other prominent early originators were LEOs (Jack Weaver, Elden Carl, John Plahn), Cooper emphasizes “that the Modern Technique of the Pistol is a completely civilian development and not a product of either the police or military establishment.”

It is not only the core of the curriculum at Gunsite; it also animated the founding of the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) (Modern Technique, p. ix).

Although the Modern Technique of the Pistol was originally limited to five elements (Weaver Stance, Flash Sight-picture, Compressed Surprise-break, Presentation, Heavy-duty Self-loading Pistol), I am interested here in what Cooper came to elaborate over time and what the American Pistol Institute came to embody.

In its elaborated form, the Modern Technique of the Pistol is composed of three parts known as the “Combat Triad”: Mindset, Gunhandling, and Marksmanship. Cooper famously elaborated each part of the combat triad over time.

What Cooper called the “Combat Mind-Set” or “mental conditioning for combat” includes the color codes of personal awareness and the seven principles of personal defense outlined in his book by that title.

In addition to loading/unloading and clearing malfunctions, gunhandling incorporates Cooper’s famous four Rules of Gun Safety as well as the four Conditions of Readiness of self-loading pistols.

Marksmanship further encompasses three principles (accuracy, power, and speed, commonly abbreviated as “DVC” for the three Latin words employed by Stanford graduate Cooper – as seen on the podium above) and employs five specific elements of the original Modern Technique (Weaver stance, etc.).

The coin I purchased to benefit the Jeff Cooper Legacy Foundation continues to reflect the three parts of the Combat Triad and the DVC principles of marksmanship.

The Modern Technique of the Pistol can be put in outline form, as follows. (Note: As WordPress limits my ability to create a hierarchical outline, I have saved the outline also as a PDF for those interested.)

1. Mindset

a. Color Codes of Personal Awareness

i. White: unaware and unprepared

ii. Yellow: relaxed awareness

iii. Orange: specific alert, full attention

iv. Red: mental trigger, fight or flight

b. Principles of Personal Defense

i. Alertness

ii. Decisiveness

iii. Aggressiveness

iv. Speed

v. Coolness

vi. Ruthlessness

vii. Surprise

2. Gunhandling

a. Universal Gunhandling Safety Rules

i. All guns are always loaded

ii. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy

iii. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target

iv. Be sure of your target

b. Conditions of Readiness (Carry) for Self-Loading Pistols

i. Zero: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety disengaged

ii. One: “cocked and locked” = hammer cocked, round in chamber, and safety engaged

iii. Two: hammer down and round in chamber

iv. Three: magazine loaded but no round in chamber

v. Four: magazine separate from gun and no round in chamber

3. Marksmanship

a. Proper balance of principles (DVC)

Diligentia = Accuracy

ii. Vis = Power

iii. Celeritas = Speed

b. Elements required to achieve balance of DVC

i. Weaver Stance

ii. Flash Sight-picture

iii. Compressed Surprise-break

iv. Presentation

v. Heavy-duty Self-loading Pistol

Of course, this is a simplification of the elaborated version of the Modern Technique. In the book by Gregory Boyce Morrison, the production of which was overseen by Cooper, the Weaver Stance (3.b.i) and Presentation of the pistol (3.b.iv) are covered under the Gunhandling part of the Combat Triad. Only the Flash Sight-picture (3.b.ii) and Compressed Surprise-break (3.b.iii) are treated in the book under Marksmanship.

Also, where to put the “Heavy-duty Self-loading Pistol” (3.b.v) is also a bit of a question because, in Cooper’s view at least, it is a constant not a variable.

It reflects the “Power” (Vis, “wounding potential”) element of the DVC triad (3.a.ii), and “is the easiest to deal with. One should opt for the weapon and caliber combination which provides for the greatest likelihood of incapacitation. Once established, power provides a ‘constant’ in the triad” (Modern Technique, p. 85).

It’s no surprise to anyone who knows Cooper that the right combination is a 1911 chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge (or a Bren Ten in 10mm). In a separate chapter on “The Colossal Cartridge Controversy,” Boyce/Cooper answer the question of the right caliber simply: “Cartridge choice must rationally lean toward the large-bore handguns . . . If you have a choice in the matter, and still believe in the superiority of the smaller over larger – or their equality – your assumptions contradict the facts” (Modern Technique, p. 101).

It is worth noting that of all these elements of the Modern Technique of the Pistol, Power (Vis) is the only one that is actually inherent in and limited by the pistol itself as a mechanical tool. The others are influenced but not determined by it. Once you factor out that constant, “The balance of speed and accuracy poses the true challenge” (Modern Technique, p. 85). Or as some call it today, the balance of speed and precision.

And yet gun owners’ spending patterns and what appears in my gun-related Instagram feed are heavily weighted toward the hardware over the software. Robert at the Civilian Gunfighter blog just posted about this very point this morning.

It’s hard to imagine the American Small Arms Academy, Massad Ayoob Group, Defense Training International, or Thunder Ranch continuing on if and when Chuck Taylor, Massad Ayoob, John Farnam, or Clint Smith choose to retire (though I see that E.A.G. Tactical is pressing on in Pat Rogers’ absence). [Edit: Thanks to Marty Hayes for informing me that my reports of Chuck Taylor’s demise are greatly exaggerated and that he is teaching a robust schedule of courses in 2018 including at the Firearms Academy of Seattle.]

Gunsite’s persistence is all the more remarkable because it is so closely associated with its founder, Col. Jeff Cooper.

I think (at least) three aspects of Gunsite account for its successful post-founder institutionalization.

First, the American Pistol Institute had grown enough in its programming early enough in its development that it wasn’t dependent upon Cooper alone to teach classes to be a viable business. (I would be interested to know how many other firearms training companies out there that fit this mold.)

Second and related, the American Pistol Institute was a valuable enough commodity separate from Cooper that someone would want to buy it. Also important is that Cooper had the foresight (or, perhaps, need?) to sell it. (Recognizing that in the original sale Cooper was supposed to stay on as a consultant to support the enterprise, but was soon pushed out by Richard Jee under the “grey” Gunsite regime [1992-1999])

Third, the curriculum being taught – the Modern Technique of the Pistol – was identified with Cooper but not identical to Cooper.

Some of this was made clear to me when the 250 Defensive Pistol Course I observed in June visited Janelle Cooper at “The Sconce” at the end of the course.

Mrs. Cooper reminded the group that her husband called what he established at Gunsite Ranch the American Pistol Institute rather than “The Cooper School.” He also talked about the Modern Technique of the Pistol rather than “The Cooper Technique.”

When I spoke to Gunsite COO Ken Campbell last month, he drew the conclusion that Mrs. Cooper suggested: Gunsite is bigger than its founder. History has borne this out.

And yet, even if you factor out the visit with Janelle Cooper, you cannot visit Gunsite without being reminded of The Colonel. He is mentioned by the instructors, his books and DVDs are sold in the pro shop, his photos and memorabilia line the classroom.

As another prominent trainer told me, Gunsite has “the weight of legacy hanging over them.” It is a blessing and a curse.

Consequently, although Gunsite continues to occupy a prominent place in the gun training industry, it is often thought of as being outdated. As Ken Campbell often says, Gunsite Academy is accused of being the “Southwest Dinosaur League,” a derogatory modification of the original “Southwest Combat Pistol League” started by Jeff Cooper.

So, in two following posts, I will take up (1) what the Modern Technique of the Pistol is, simply and briefly (for those, like me, who are not already intimately familiar with it), and (2) on the evolution of the Modern Technique at Gunsite as I saw it during my observation in June 2017.

My first thought, of course, was to begin with Col. Jeff Cooper’s four rules of firearms safety. My second thought was that the exchange student’s conversational English is good, but he might not have the English words for gun-related ideas.

After an unsuccessful Google search for “Four Rules of Gun Safety in Spanish,” I floated a request for help on my Gun Culture 2.0 Facebook page. This received an immediate response from Jesse Ordunez, the Director of Training at The Bulwarks in Kentucky, who I met at Gunsite Academy this past June. Jesse directed the inquiry to Yamil Sued, a professional gun photographer who happens to be a native Spanish speaker. Yamil was good enough to offer the following Spanish translation of Cooper’s four rules:

1- Todas las Armas están SIEMPRE Cargadas

ALL Guns are ALWAYS LOADED

 

2- No apuntes el cañon a nada que no estés dispuesto a destruir

NEVER let the Muzzle Cover ANYTHING which you are not willing to destroy

 

3- No pongas el dedo en el gatillo hasta que las miras no esten en el blanco

Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target

 

4- Siempre estes seguro de tu blanco

Always be sure of your target

I am grateful to Yamil for offering this translation. I am looking forward to reviewing them with our Argentinian visitor. Please share them widely with others who may benefit from having them.