Centre Axis Relock, legitimate tactic with merit, or bogus tactical mall ninja stuff?
- Thread starter Battlerifleelitist
- Start date
I would rather ##### slap them with my gun
Ignorant will always stay ignorant. The worst one are those who need bad word to explain theyr opignion...
WTF ''invented by airsoft''
Here who invented it: Paul Castle , was an english special police officier. you can find some bio about him(he's died couple of year form cancer)
here some video of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTWCq4b6VI8&list=TL-eyett_ru0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nghq7ANLSc0&list=TLuZWdK4jkK2U
Pay some respect in life and educate yourself people...and stop arguing about something you don't understand.
Isosceles and weaver stance have they'r place and situation to be used.
But if you think you can use weaver stance in close combat situation you have thing to learn. CAR is they for close encounter, weaver/isosceles for longer engagement distance.
And for god sake leave airsoft alone.
If You can slap them with your gun, You may kick them as well.
I employed this technique as a part of my training ONLY as emergency option.
Range was closed to the public and we were closed to the targets though.
I wasn't happy with the results.
Basing on that experience I would try to disengage and regain the more convenient position, but it's not so easy to do when You are looking and engaging the target, so sometimes it may be the only option to use.
I cant really comment other then id rather hit them with the peice of steel in my hand.
With my work i dont really need to train with guns since i work with the fire department so ill take your word on it.
Thanks for doing what You doing. If SHTF, the bottom line is - do what works for You.
heavenIsAlie
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Abbotsford
i thought this was some new knife locking mechanism from benchmade and had been posted in the wrong forum
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
There are better methods of shooting when concerned with retention. There are major issues with this technique if you choose to look for them.
One is the bladed stance. For those wearing armor, the bladed stance offers up the side of your body, where there typically is no armor. For those not wearing armor, it increases the chance of getting shot through both lungs instead of just one. Now, I've never been shot in the lung before, so I don't really know.....but I would bet my Glock that getting shot through both lungs is worse than just one. I forgot that there is a heart somewhere in there too, but it's probably best to forget about that, much like the proponents of this system do.
When you actually aim with this technique, you are actually totally blocking you vision on the left or right side. I don't know about you, but I find it pretty hard to see through my hand/wrist, and if actually in a "CQB" situation, I'd want as full a field of vision as possible. Call me weird, but i tend to think that two eyes are better than one.
Last edited:
I am sorry, but you obviously fit into the talk less and read more section of modern combat use or pistols.
No one said use weaver or isosceles in close encounters, but you. If the threat is close you shoot from retention, you don't half turn your back to the threat limiting your movement options, and limiting your attack defend options. You would be wise to heed the knowldge of others on this subject.
Shawn
No one with any sense would deliberately learn anything about firearms from a British Police officer. Incidentally, Mick Gould is ex- British SAS, he doesn't use this technique for anything. British Police are great for policing an unarmed populace, most would burn out in short order in the US. In close quarters/contact engagements, fire from full retention.
The armor point has been made multiple times so I'll leave that one.
If the threat is so close I can't punch out into an Isosolese I'll be shooting from the draw. As the target moves back or as I can move back to increase time and distance I can then punch out into my Isosolese.
There's a reason that real world professionals don't use or teach this stance.
Yep, I was trained in it and the parts of it I liked I kept and still use today. It's not just shooting but it also involves how to cover suspects that you are watching and an alternative ready position. It's is great for close quarters. It is a lot more accurate than u would think. Other parts that I didn't like I disregarded. It just another tool in the box
after some thought i feel what i said before may be a bit harsh, i can see this coming in handy for naval boarding teams working in tight corridors. but outside of that type of environment it seems fairly pointless and even then undermines your armor and as i mentioned before gives the enemy an enfilade on your organs. as someone else mentioned as well you lose a significant amount of peripheral vision in this stance, if this was designed for CQC it must have been for a very long narrow and limited space because in CQC you'd want as much peripheral vision as possible. 360 degree battle space and all that. It essentially ignores all the reasons police and military adopted the isosceles
Last edited:
And yet the people that do that professionally still don't use it, I wonder why?
Shawn
Oh, buddy. You're forgetting the fact that human beings are blinded with tunnel vision when stressed or threatened {like fainting goats I suppose!?} hence the "Z" clear.
Where the fack did this guy come up with this crap, or better yet, why on earth would anyone listen to him? WTF is the "special British police force"? Around here they don't give "special constables" firearms...they direct traffic for parades. No disrespect to the dead, but there's a lesson here...be careful what you put on YouTube while you're alive or you'll risk ridicule when you're gone.
