You said a mouthful. I wonder what percentage of CCW holders have never even fired their CCW. I go shooting all the time, at least every other weekend.
Also, make sure to test your carry ammo when shooting. If you always practice with FMJ's, then carry JHP's every day, you might be in for a surprise if your gun chooses not to feed the particular brand of JHP's you've chosen. When you're faced with an attacker is NOT the time to find this out. But it feeds Remington Golden Saber's flawlessly, every time. It seems to be caused by the shape of the bullet's nose and the feed ramp angle. [/quote]
I also have two .45's both XD's. A his and hers. I like the .45 for the kinetic energy and knock down potential. I trained my wife on how to shoot and now she has her own CCL. Every chance we get to ourselves with the kids put up we go shoot and she enjoys it. I shoot more than she does, but then again, I have to qualify regularly for my line of work. It's good to test your weapon with JHP's but for practice that can get expensive. Once you know your pistol can reliably feed JHP's, it is much cheapter to fire FMJ's, plus you get more range time being able to purchase more ammo-when you can find it anymore, that is.

"In a crisis situation you will not rise to the occasion, but default to your level of training." anon

Keep your level of training high (whatever that may be) and employ situational awareness at all times.

Well, to point #1, sounds like you're into repo's or something I know what you mean. When I used to work EMS, we were stuck in parking lots and street corners at all hours of the day. But, even in Long Beach or Compton, I never carried. I mean, it's just causing more trouble. We just found something nice and open, so we could see trouble coming. Never had a problem with local thugs, though I've heard enough storied about it.

Point #2... the Brit police seem to do fairly well without firearms. Something to ponder, despite how most of us feel about their "no firearm" laws. And if nothing else, there's bound to be a few folks allergic to dogs

Yeah, that's what I meant. If I could afford to always shoot JHP's, I could afford my own SWAT team to follow me around. I run through an entire box (20 or 25, depends on brand) every now and then of different JHP's just to try them out and see what the Taurus Millenium Pro likes or doesn't like. Then I tear up maybe 100 or so FMJ's. Then I get out my Ruger 10/22 and shoot as much as I feel like, since it's dirt cheap.



No, I'm actually an alarm technician. But, in my opinion, EMS and fire personnel are considered more on the neutral side (from talking to friends in those lines of work). Whereas we aren't, we are considered on the same terms as police, we're the bad guys in the eyes of the thugs. So, I've been drawn down on and even fired at in my line of work.

I've asked several British people I talk to on the net about their take on the no firearm laws. I've yet to hear a favorable response. As a wise man once said "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". If there's no firearms, and no knives, then the bad guy with the sharp stick or baseball bat is in charge. I believe strongly in peace through superior firepower, training, and readiness.

Old Soldier, Tom L, this is the reference for Robert W. Smith that I was referring to previously

Martial Musings

Smith lists some techniques in the Fairbairn syllabus that he thinks just won't work, they may not be in the system that was linked previously

1) a one armed choke...a two handed straight choke is almost useless, I can't see a one handed choke having any effectivness

2) The back breaker, lifting an opponent up an breaking his back over the knee, unless you are an Olympic class power lifter I can't see that working

3) Match box versus gun...a soldier is held at gun point, he grabs a matchbox clenches his fist around it and slams the enemy in the head. Fairbairn claims a two to one probability of knocking your opponent out. I think you will break your hand and then be shot if you try this one

4) an odd hip throw where by standing face to face with an opponent you step behind him and throw him over your hip...Smith is correct, this is an ineffective technique, you would be better off using the judo throw o-soto-gari, it would be faster and take a lot less strength.

I have to add , I just think these techniques are ineffective, a friend of mine teaches WW2 combatives and has appeared on documentaries on Camp X, a lot of it is good stuff.

Thanks for your post, Hookpunch!. This is in fact exactly what I was talking about - people look at Fairbairn and focus on the specific techniques but fail to grasp the wide picture.

Fairbairn's two WWII-era booklets were already criticized for some of their shortcomings at the time they were published. Some, including Fairbairn's colleague Sykes (who was in no small part responsible to creating the British silent killing syllabus at the time) felt that the books were rushed into print and did not contain the best overall selection of techniques. Applegate's Kill or Get Killed is generally thought to be more comprehensive and better balanced in that regard.

It's important to note that Fairbairn was a highly experienced judoka and therefore partial to techniques found in old-school "combat" judo at the time, which still included strikes unlike the sport judo practiced today. But if you read the actual WWII training syllabus, the trainees were taught to use any techniques they were familiar with, even boxing punches as long as they could throw them correctly. Check out Melson's book Close Combat Files of Rex Applegate for more info, it's a good read.

The bottom line is, the techniques depicted in Fairbairn's books are what he personally thought were the moves that offered the most bang for the buck for someone not trained in combatives already. Pretty much all Fairbairn taught was however tried and tested in practice (with a number of sources and reports to back it up should you wish to research the operative history of his system). So I'd be hesitant to call any of his techniques useless. Getting them right may be another story because there are very few people these days who still practice old-school judo.

But again, Fairbairn's combatives are about the concept, not techniques. A lot of folks don't understand that and hence miss the forest for the trees. As always, YMMV.

Hey Tom L, didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Fairbairn's system is useless, to be truthfull there are some judo techniques that are in the Kodokan syllabus that no one in their right mind would try in either competition or in combat.

The tai-otoshi where you drop to your knee, I know more that one judoka who has injured his knee trying that just in practice never mind competition.

Hookpunch, I would also agree that some of those techniques are marginal, at best. Choking someone with two hands is ineffective-if you arent on top of them, there is simply too much give (in most cases. Some folks are gigantic, and can pull it off, but most regular sized people simply cannot leverage it). Besides, breaking a two handed front choke is too simple-same as a one handed choke.
I had a cop continually try to put me in a one handed choke (I didnt know he was a cop until later-lets leave it at he & his buddies started a fight I tried to break up), I simply kept swatting his hand away. Its one of the most ineffective ways to try & subdue someone, and leaves fingers wide open for breaking.
The Hagganah system, and, from what I've read, the Combato system, are designed around effective, quick techniques-I am not sure about Combato, but there werent any advanced throws in Hagganah-some simple trips, that was about it. I am familiar with throws, but situations simply never allow one to use a judo throw-things simply happen too fast, and situations are too fluid. Better to let weakened joints & gravity do the work

Hmm, all this talk about chokes makes me wonder... I have some experience with the Fairbairn system and I don't recall any chokes being taught. It's been a while since I've last done any serious combatives practice but I just looked at Get Tough! and All-In Fighting again.

Fairbairn in fact does not use any chokes in his system. Only two techniques, No. 6 and 6A, show escapes from either a one-handed or two-handed choke. Both very basic, foolproof moves. Also, there is a rear strangle hold/neck break but I don't think this is what Mr. Smith had in mind.

So I'm not quite sure where this idea about chokes comes from. Looks like Mr. Smith either failed to study Fairbairn's system thoroughly or perhaps there is some misunderstanding.

Could be, I don't have the original materials but Smith cites Defendu, Scientific Self Defence, Get Tough: Hands Off, Self Defence for Women and All-In Fighting as books he has owned at one point or another and also studying the famous film OSS Training Group for his view of Fairbairn's work.

I think I have seen excerpts from the film on Camp X documentaries.

As far as chokes, well can't say about self-defence but the rear naked choke is my preferred grappling submission.