For anyone who wants to carry a gun in self defense I suggest you read the final words of Col. Rex Applegate before he died. Rex was 84 when he gave this speech before a full house of Washington State police firearms training officers. This speech has been BURIED by the gun rags for OBVIOUS reasons. Rex didn't hold back. Rex is 100% RIGHT but my only complaint if you can call it that for Rex is that he didn't know WHY he was right. Had he known that, he would be been more of a GOD to the shooting community. Rex's credentials can NOT be challenged. He is and was that good. Now read his words and take them to heart. It's lengthy but worth the read.

Rex Applegate’s speech form February, 1998, Seattle, Washington.

"Gentlemen, I want to dispose of an unanswered question which is probably on your minds, the age of that old bastard now speaking on the platform. I will be 84 next June, and I assure you that I have no career or economic axe to grind. In my role as a contrarian, I realize that some of you may consider me to be a voice from the past, however, what I'm going to say to you, involves my evaluation of the handgun training which most of you are currently giving to your officers and recruits. Although I am addressing your group here in Washington State, what I have to say also applies to ALL handgun firearms trainers in the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement.

In case you are not aware of it, the national average of police hits in firefight situations which criminals is approximately 15%. This disgraceful level of proficiency has remained almost the same over the past many years. During this time, the Weaver, two handed sighted stance has dominated in training, even for close quarter combat, to the exclusion of better battle-tested techniques.

It is my opinion, that most of you have been "brainwashed' into believing that the Weaver is the only way to shoot a handgun in combat. Actually, the Weaver was developed as a means to achieve great expertise in the sport of combat competition shooting. Unfortunately, it 'breaks down' under stress and instinctive shooter reactions, which take place in close quarter, life threatening combat situations. Irrespective of this, you have continued to train with it, even though over 50% of all police shootings take place at distances of less than 30 feet, under conditions where there is no time, light or opportunity for the mandatory use of sights as required by the Weaver stance. Now, you would think that any serious firearms trainer would be looking to improve training of police shooters at close quarters so as to increase their hit factor. Still, this has not been the case.”

WE NEED TO PAUSE HERE

Rex has just stood before a huge group of firearms trainers and gave them a direct shot in the educational groin. Vanity runs deep with police officers and I doubt anyone has spoken to them with such candor. We could stop here and leave Rex's words as sufficient. But in his failing and limited time on earth the old battle horse isn't about to take a shot and ride off into the sunset. Rex is working with high capacity and hitting this target with every shot. As Rex has said, he has no economic or other axe to grind. This is from the heart and based on an incredible life of real experience.

"Before the World War I and during the World War II period, most police and military handgun training for actual combat involved shooting on the range with one hand at bull’s-eye targets. At this time most training consists of using two hands to do practically the same thing. You also use numerical scores, almost entirely based on sighted shots, to determine whether or not the officer is fully trained for actual close quarter combat. In reality, you men are only half trained. They certainly are not adequately trained for t hose situations where most of their actual combat encounters will take place.

The police and the military have been u sing handguns in mortal combat for several centuries, and there is a proven history of successful handgun use in combat. Irrespective of t his, the modern technique of the pistol published by Gunsite Press in 1991, is now declared by the 'experts and gurus' to be the basis from which almost all current police handgun training is derived.

Actually, the Weaver stance cannot be validated on the basis of actual combat experience. In fact, it is the 'new kid on the block.' It merits are based on almost solely, on the opinion of those gun writers and self-proclaimed, or 'media-made gurus' who have been promoting it over the years. I consider this a disservice to most police and military recruits who have been solely trained in this technique. Currently, this is an escalating though controversial issue of primary and vital importance to all of law enforcement.

For those of you who do not know, I have long been an advocate of the single hand point shooting technique, a combat tested, historically proven, and authenticated method of using the handgun in close quarter, life threatening situations. It is diametrically opposed to most of the basic precepts of the Weaver technique. Also believe me when I say that if there were any other proven way to improve police handgun performance in close combat, I would be for it, even if it involved standing on your head. I hope that now you can approach this subject with an 'open mind.' Remember, your main concern and primary objective should always be how to teach your officers and recruits to survive and successfully conclude handgun firefights-which mostly occur at close quarters.”

ANOTHER BREAK

He didn't mince words much. His last sentence here is right on the money. So simple, but so filled with meaning but it is pure Rex. We have lost that focus totally. Rex obviously shows an open mind to alternatives, but we don't offer alternatives now, we have carved the training regimen into concrete. It is now inflexible. You go Rex.

“I am of the opinion that in the case of the sighted shot, I would rely entirely on the isosceles stance. In my opinion, any future successful police handgun training program should be devoted to half isosceles and half point shooting. I would entirely eliminate the Weaver stance training for reasons which I will state later in the program. There is an urgent need of an attitude change in the minds of most trainers and in the law enforcement organizations of this vital, basic subject. At this time, a ground swell is taking place from the ranks to turn things around. I am also appalled at the reluctance of most police firearms instructors to at least try, or test, the point shooting technique against the Weaver in their training programs. I consider this fact to be detrimental to all active police personnel and military personnel. Now, it is a fact that for the past two decades most police and military firearm instructors have blindly assumed that the two handed Weaver is the only way to shoot a handgun in close quarter combat. The modern technique of the pistol has been accepts as gospel even thought it breaks down in most police combat situations under 30 feet, and where conditions are unlike previous experience on the training range. I am afraid that you have been listening too long to many individuals who are legends in their own minds and whose constant mantra seems to be 'always get a flash sight or front sight picture' etc. etc. As far as I am concerned, this is pure B.S.

Now I fully realize that in the past, most policemen have never had to fire their gun in anger. But as the song title says, 'the times they are a changing.' The escalating use of firearms by criminal elements must be matched by not only giving our law enforcement officers the best hand gun training available, but also providing them the proper training mix so they can survive the escalating violence now taking place in our streets and alleys. In fact, those trainers who have been entirely involved in teaching their trainees the two handed Weaver stance technique, remind me of lemmings who mass and go in one direction, oblivious to anything else-and die going over the cliff. There is a place in police handgun training programs for the sighted shot, but not to the exclusion of other battle-tested techniques.

Now gun writers and other 'media driven, self styled experts' have been bad mouthing point shooting for years. Some have deliberately or through ignorance associated it with Bill Jordan style of exhibition shooting which involves shooting an aspirin from gun on the hip. These same people continue to take strong stands against the point shooting technique because they cannot afford at this late date to change their position. Their egos, economic and other factors wont' permit anything else. Incidentally, I am not impressed by those trainers who want to 'stroke their own egos' by demonstrating their superior expertise before classes of basic recruits. I am principally interested in what and how they train, not in the number of combat competition tournaments and medals they have won, etc.

Today's average police or military recruit has an urban background and no interest in handgun shooting for recreational purposes. Your recruit base is comprised of both sexes from varying ethnic groups with all types of physical statures, various sizes of hands, etc. Their attitude toward the use of firearms varies, based on what they either assumed to be true, prior to training-or what they are told by their instructors. Ninety-nine percent of them consider their handguns as just another tool hanging on the belt, like handcuffs. This is the raw material from which you must create a competent combat shooter, not only because of their own survival, but to better perform their professional duties.

Your men and women recruits and officers deserve the best training you can provide, and they certainly have little or no interest in becoming a 'combat competition' shooter. I say wake up and smell the roses' before more dirt covers police caskets. To some of you, these statements may come as a rude shock, and I do not expect to be overwhelmed with applause at the end of this session. However, I do ask you to grant me the courtesy of your attention. In return, I'll try to keep you from going to sleep.

We all know the story about the how, in the 1950's, Jack Weaver introduced the Weaver stance into combat competition shooting, a recreational sport.

This system was picked up and very successfully promoted by the guru from Gunsite. Many other writers and 'experts' have since been responsible for its almost universal acceptance as the way to shoot a handgun in simulated combat. Movies, TV, The Gun Press, and many authors have 'spawned' numerous books, articles and videos on this method of two handed, sighted, handgun shooting. Almost 00 civilian shooting schools also now exist promoting the two handed Weaver as the only way to shoot a handgun in actual combat. Entire industries are now devoted to satisfying the needs of combat competition shooters. Special sights, grips and other accessories abound. Handgun manufacturers and gunsmiths have made a 'killing' catering to combat competition shooters. The Colt model 1911 and its many close is touted as the weapon for successful handgun use in IPSC shooting circles and also as an ideal civilian defensive handgun in the civilian shooting schools. Fortunately, most law enforcement has not bought in the recommendations of the gurus and shooting cults, which have evolved around this antiquated, but still famous handgun.

Compared to the basic shooting stance, Isosceles and Point, the Weaver requires complex motor skills, requiring hand-eye coordination and a series of timed muscle movements working together to achieve sighted fire accuracy. The Weaver shooter must spend many hours on the range, expend a relatively great amount of more ammunition, and undergo constant training and retraining to build up what is known as 'muscle memory' which is supposed to replace natural instinctive response in stress situations.

To assume the Weaver stance, the shooter stands upright, with his strong side at a 45-degree angle away from the target. The strong, or gun supporting hand is slightly bent, and the supporting arm is bent sharply, elbow pointing toward the ground. Isometric tension is relied upon for stability. The gun hands pushes out, and the support hand pulls to firm up the sight picture. This stance also enables quick recoil recovery. Also involved are the use of the dominant eye, and separate trigger finger control. General it is excellent in achieving high scores in IPSC type competition shooting. However it does not meet the needs of the shooter in actual close quarter, high-tension combat situations.

On the other hand the two handed Isosceles stance is simple, compared to the Weaver. It has been battle tested. It takes advantage of more natural and instinctive shooter reactions when under combat stress. What is even more important, is the fact that most shooters, no mater how well trained in the Weaver, instinctively revert to the Isosceles when faced with life threatening situations. This is why I say 'throw out' the Weaver in police training programs. Recent police history and modern research support my conclusion. We used it during World War II because it worked for sighting handgun fire in combat, whereas the single hand bull’s-eye training in effect in the police and military programs at the time, did not.

Single Hand Point Shooting

When any individual is subjected to combat stress and a life-threatening situation at close quarters, he instinctively faces the threat with both eyes open, focusing on the target, and assumes an instinctive natural forward crouch. In the case of the handgun shooter, the gun is gripped convulsively. These are the building blocks around which single-handed, sighted shooter reacts much the same in similar circumstances.

The point shooter locks his wrist and elbow, lift, or raises his arm in a pump hand motion until the gun reaches eye level, and he fires. His eyes never leave the target. Gun sights and process of sighting are completely disregarded. Separate trigger finger function and recoil control are not important factors because he is gripping the gun convulsively and squeezes the whole hand when activating the trigger. Head-hitting accuracy is possible at a range of up to 15 yards in all kinds of light and terrain conditions, from either a stationary or moving position. Combat competence in point shooting can be achieved regardless of shooter background and the weapon used. Trainers will find that combat expertise can be developed in a shorter training time with less ammunition expenditure and little need for constant retraining. The reason all this is possible, is because point shooting is based on how the mind, body, and eyes - instinctively react under combat stress. Simply put, it's a natural instinctive process like raising your hand and pointing the gun barrel as you would your finger (etc.)

The free hand is used to maintain balance when stationary or moving, while using a flashlight, opening a car door, avoiding body contact, etc. From a holstered position, the body bends forward in the instinctive crouch position, the handgun is drawn and lifted, or raised to the firing position.

This system of handgun shooting at close quarters has a long history of success in actual combat, dating back to prior World War I. It is well documented.

I have simplified these definitions of stances, but have covered the basics. At the present time, there are well illustrated books and videos also describing the point shooting technique and its combat background, history, etc. Numerous articles covering this subject have recently appeared in the Guns Press. Single hand, point shooting is the best, most practical means for the military man, policeman, or civilian to shoot at close quarters - in actual ("not 'simulated') combat situations.

Pushing - Shoving the Handgun

Every day, there is a newspaper report describing how police and criminals in engage in firefights at very close ranges with many shots fired, and few hits scored.

I am now going to cover one of the major reasons the police or soldier misses in handgun combat, even at very close ranges

Basically, this is because the stressed shooter grips his weapon convulsively, and pushes, punches, or shoves his weapon at the target before firing. When this happens, the design of the handgun, as well as the delivery method prior to firing, greatly affects accuracy, and ultimately, lives. I am aware that many of you actively conduct "drills" based on pushing or shoving the handgun at the targets. I am also aware that many "gurus" advocate this method of shooting."

(Demonstration shown here, using a laser mounted model 1911 & Whitney handgun. Shows how almost all handguns, when gripped convulsively under shooter tension, will always end up pointing downward when pushed or shoved at the adversary, before firing.)

Col. Applegate's speech continues:

"Where does Jeff Cooper stand on close quarter handgun training? In his 1961 book, he states that 90% of combat shooting is done with one hand, and that if you are trained to hit only if you can see the sights, you are only 8% effective. At this time, he has turned almost 100% around, and advocates the two handed Weaver sighted shot for almost all handgun situations. "You can't have it both ways."

Applegate at the end does not mince words. He points an accusing finger at Cooper and shows some obvious change of mind by Cooper and devotes that they would rather forget about. Earlier in his speech Rex blasts the gun magazine types and puts the final wooden stake in their heart with an unquestioned blast at Cooper. To my knowledge Cooper has been smart enough not to challenge Rex or his position(s) on such matters.

Rex's final speech should be mandatory reading for any person who is thinking of using a handgun for self-defense. It is a monument of logic and knowledge to Rex that will be timeless.

Rex knew what he was doing. Unlike the appeasers and the "don't rock the boat' crowd, Rex laid it out for all to see. There isn't much to debate on his content. The question is why the audience didn't listen. Little has or will change.

Is it possible to use none of the above or some homebrew combination and still be successful?

I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on technically "shooting right" doesn't do the typical self-defense shooter harm. Instead of focusing on what they can do well instinctively, they end up over-thinking a bunch of complicated technique, and when it really matters they end up shooting instinctively -- and badly, since they've spent all their time suppressing what they do instinctively on some fancy technique.

None of this is to say that techniques can't make you a better shooter, but too much emphasis on technique might not actually have all the intended effects.

...I was about 10-20 feet (distances varied as I was on the move). It was dark and because of another problem (a wolf) I quit and went into the house.