Excerpted from "Play A Winning Hand" by Mike Conti, pg. 13 & 14 Guns & Ammo, Handguns 2009 Annual
The entire concept of the Modern Technique was based on the belief that the core components of the system were as universally applicable for actual combat situations as they were for target shooting on the range. This concept was validated by anecdotes from Modern Technique adherents who had been involved in some type of violent person-on-person incident, stories that were often reported in magazines and books.
For the past couple of decades, though, law enforcement has documented a less-than stellar performance record during documented, real-world gunfights. In fact, studies conducted by the FBI and other police organizations have consistentely indicated that in actual gunfights, on average the police miss the threat suspect they are shooting at with as many as 85 percent of the rounds they fire--this despite years of documented training using primarily the two-hand hold and other Modern Technique-based practices.
Whenever this disparity between training methods and standards and actual real-world performance is brought up, proponents of the Modern Technique are quick to blame the individual officer for failing to adhere to his training or to condemn the members of the law enforcementt profession as a whole for failing to adequately train their officers "enough" in the Modern Techinque.
After having studied this matter in some detail over the past 20 or so years, I've come the conclusion that it's time for us to rethink our dependence upon the two-hand hold, sight-focused school of pistol training becasue it apparently does not adequately prepare the average, armed individual--police officer or law-abiding private citizen--for the realites of violent close-quarters spontaneous events.
It is critical to remember that while these two-hand techniques may reign supreme on the target range or when hunting, they were not developed for use against armed and dangerous human beings presenting an immediate threat at near to touching distances. For those who desire specifics, let's say distances from seven yards to breath-in-the face close, since statistcs also indicate that more than 80 percent of police-involved shootings occur in this zone, most of these within five feet.
Several years ago, I reported on some research which indicated that one of the primary reasons sights were not used during actual or simulated close-quarter spontaneous events was becasue the operators reported that they had an overwhelming feeling there was "not enough time" to access and use them.
It wasn't that the interviewed officers didn't actually have enought time to access the sights. They did have the time, but in their minds they were convinced they did not--despite long, documented histories of being successfully trained to use the sights on the target range.
It's the difference between training for the range and training for the real world. In the real world, we operate in what Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz described as the "element of danger." And in this element of danger, the vast majority of humang beings facing an armed and dangerous opponent at close quarters will be naturally and forcefully compelled to stare at that threatening human being during those few fleeting and terryifying moments. More than 13,000 years of evolution--during which human beings often squared off against one another with sharp, pointy sticks--pretty much ensures it.
We will also tend to crouch, and if we have something small and dangerous in our hand--whether a sharp, pointy stick or a handgun loaded with sharp, pointy bullets--we will more than likely stare open-eyed at that threat while we try to drive our weapon straight toward and into him, usually with one hand.
