UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Bravo45 Gunfighting Discussion Thread


4/22/13 4:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26742
"Nowhere did I advocate "gun in armpit" Some guys do have to draw through there, if they carry their handgun high up on their gear."

If you go frame by frame, @ the .5 sec mark, his hand is still canted downwards, but his wrist is right about his sternum...which for a fat guy is as close to the armpit as he's gonna get.

I dont think the armpit is really what you're going for when they teach "bring it up to your armpit. I think its like muay thai when they say keep you hands up to your temples (bowinkle) they are just emphasizing high as you can. they know you're gonna drop them lower. Same thing...they just want you to draw out of holster high enough to meet your support hand, which should be on your chest.

Again this is fundamentals... not advanced/modified for what may work better for someone under some certain conditions.

I agree, just because Robb is going fast, doesnt mean he isn't going through each of the 4/5 steps...
4/22/13 4:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
275 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14886
sreiter - "Nowhere did I advocate "gun in armpit" Some guys do have to draw through there, if they carry their handgun high up on their gear."

If you go frame by frame, @ the .5 sec mark, his hand is still canted downwards, but his wrist is right about his sternum...which for a fat guy is as close to the armpit as he's gonna get.

I dont think the armpit is really what you're going for when they teach "bring it up to your armpit. I think its like muay thai when they say keep you hands up to your temples (bowinkle) they are just emphasizing high as you can. they know you're gonna drop them lower. Same thing...they just want you to draw out of holster high enough to meet your support hand, which should be on your chest.

Again this is fundamentals... not advanced/modified for what may work better for someone under some certain conditions.

I agree, just because Robb is going fast, doesnt mean he isn't going through each of the 4/5 steps...

We should move this to another thread...

But, why should your support hand be on your chest? Rob's isn't "on his chest." His support hand meets the gun on the way to the target. It never comes to his chest...

My point is that all of the dogmatic "steps" used in teaching the draw are just for teaching purposes. You can and should move past them.
4/22/13 7:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3640
I’ve skipped over a lot of basic stuff, i.e. safety briefing, finger outside trigger guard, reloads, the draw, etc. This is stuff I’ve got info on, but it’s more along the lines of personal thought.

I think basic pistoleros should be introduced to dry fire. This is one of my big pet peeves. I graduated the police academy with nearly zero understanding of the enormous benefits of dry fire. The benefits were never conveyed to me, no drills were given, etc. Instead, to work on my shooting I was told to work on 1 hole drills from 3 yards, work my trigger reset, and other things I’ve now come to believe might actually be more detrimental than good.

Switching subjects to accuracy, competitive and combative shooters have identical mindsets even if they don’t want to believe it. Delivering accurate shots on target in the least amount of time possible. EVERYBODY I’ve ever spoken with whose opinion I value agrees-accuracy is the basest and most valued goal in shooting. Accuracy is so important, both groups unanimously also advocate shooting precision type drills in practice. All these drills usually incorporate freestyle, WHO, and SHO shooting.

Paul Howe has his pistol standards run against the clock with a modified IPSC target. Vickers runs his drills on an IDPA cardboard with a bull pasted over the -0. McNamara uses USPSA targets. Henk Iverson runs his class with the A zone being a 3x5 notecard spray glued onto a USPSA target. All of these guys consider hits outside their designated “A” zones failures in drills. McNamara goes so far as to not even give you a time if you throw a shot outside the A zone. He will tell you, “The timer says, NO GO!” Howe allows you 2 failures on the 10 standards before you are a no go. Vickers doesn’t have set standards, but he’d usually penalize 1 second for each shot outside the black of the bullseye during any of the competitions or drills he ran. A bigger time penalty the further you got away from the bull, but I forget the specifics.

Now, circling back to the academy, we were taught to press the trigger slowly to the rear and wait for the surprise break. Once the shot broke, hold the trigger to the rear and emphasize releasing the trigger to reset. Knowing what I do now, I have several disagreements with this teaching.

In gunfights you simply do not have time to slowly press the trigger. You absolutely have to learn to break a shot quickly without disturbing the sights. This should be a focus of training. Also, trigger reset. Good lord if I could forget about what I was taught at the beginning I would. The typical bullseye reset has value, I’m sure it does. I use it when I practice group shooting. Most cops will never shoot groups though-ever.

I should also put out the caveat that for beginning shooters, this type of training probably has some value. I believe the value deteriorates relatively quickly for new students and a transition should take place where emphasis is placed on speed and accuracy.

Howe and Vickers both go through what I would call the 3 basic trigger release methods. (Picture a Glock here for simplicity). You have the typical, slow bullseye reset where your finger theoretically does not move beyond the point required to reset the trigger. Howe says it can be effective, but requires consistent practice. Both Howe and Vickers stated that teaching this method to new shooters will lead to trigger freeze, or when a shooter doesn’t break a shot with a trigger pull because they didn’t let it reset far enough after the last shot. In my own experience, this is absolutely true. When I went from shooting slowly to trying to shoot more quickly, I soon found out the first method was not for me. Several times in strings of 3 shots or more, I would short stroke the trigger.

The second method is releasing the trigger quickly to a point beyond reset, but your finger does not leave the trigger. This method, according to Howe and Vickers, is more reliable and does not require “as consistent” training. This is currently the method I use.

The last method, as seen with shooters like Jarrett and Leatham, is getting off the trigger so quickly your trigger finger damn near hits the trigger guard. I’ve seen this as most popular with 1911/2011’s, but can’t comment on it because I just haven’t done it myself.

Rob Leatham will tell you that if you want to shoot quickly, you have to learn to slap, jerk, or yank the trigger quickly without disturbing the sights. You simply cannot “press” a trigger 6 times in a second.
McNamara wil tell you shooting is simple: Line up the sights, pull the trigger straight to the rear. Mac didn’t go into a lot of specifics.

I’m rambling, but the basic gist is this: for gunfights and competitions both, it is absolutely paramount to learn shooting quickly without disturbing the sights. Because this is what is going to happen and needs to happen to have a positive outcome.

Coming full circle now back to dry fire, I’m still pissed I didn’t find out about Burkett Reloads until I bought Steve Anderson’s book. Seriously, such a valuable reloading drill that doesn’t beat up your mags or have you constantly picking them up, and not many people outside the competitive shooting community even know about it.

Learning what I believe might be the most important function of your front sight – interpreting feedback on your trigger press – was something never mentioned in the academy. Calling your shots was never mentioned in the academy. All these things can be honed in dry fire. Why the hell wasn’t I told? Okay, getting beyond the bitterness now…

Obviously, competitive shooters are enormously into dry fire – for good reason. The only Tac Instructor that really addressed dry fire in any depth was Howe. Paul not only included and encouraged it, but incorporates it into his stepped platform for validating your training. Paul also went over safety while dry firing, as well as showing us where we could do so safely in the barracks.

New shooters should be given resources to hone the skills they will need. There are a TON of dryfire books out there now. Stoeger’s, Seeklander’s, and both of Anderson’s off the top of my head. There is no reason a student should walk out of any class wondering what they can do to improve. I really believe dry fire is a huge component of improving anyone’s shooting.

As more food for thought, Rhyme and myself both tend to agree that 15-20 minutes of dryfire is good for one session. Ben Stoeger says the same. You should be pretty roasted after 15-20 minutes of bust ass dry firing. I will say that sometimes I do 30 or 40 minutes, but I’ll generally change up what I’m working on to change focus. Most times the second half of my dry fire routine is dedicated to reloads. Mac said he was physically and mentally “toast” after 20 minutes, but to be honest, I picture his dry fire involving wind sprints and cartwheels, too.

Tying back into dryfire, I think it’s equally important to let people know they need to validate their dry fire with live fire. I don’t think it’s an absolute necessity to have a timer for dryfire, but I use one. I think I’ve heard Bob Vogel does not, but don’t quote me on that. Some guys (Seeklander) are nearly absurd with their live fire to dry fire requirements. Stoeger, I’ve heard, does nearly no live fire through the Wisconsin winter. I think it’s in his book.

More coming.
4/22/13 7:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3641
Rhyme, no worries, bro. I just wanted to make sure I didn't sound like a know-it-all.
4/22/13 8:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26743
Rhymenoceros - 
sreiter - "Nowhere did I advocate "gun in armpit" Some guys do have to draw through there, if they carry their handgun high up on their gear."

If you go frame by frame, @ the .5 sec mark, his hand is still canted downwards, but his wrist is right about his sternum...which for a fat guy is as close to the armpit as he's gonna get.

I dont think the armpit is really what you're going for when they teach "bring it up to your armpit. I think its like muay thai when they say keep you hands up to your temples (bowinkle) they are just emphasizing high as you can. they know you're gonna drop them lower. Same thing...they just want you to draw out of holster high enough to meet your support hand, which should be on your chest.

Again this is fundamentals... not advanced/modified for what may work better for someone under some certain conditions.

I agree, just because Robb is going fast, doesnt mean he isn't going through each of the 4/5 steps...

We should move this to another thread...

But, why should your support hand be on your chest? Rob's isn't "on his chest." His support hand meets the gun on the way to the target. It never comes to his chest...

My point is that all of the dogmatic "steps" used in teaching the draw are just for teaching purposes. You can and should move past them.

"But, why should your support hand be on your chest? Rob's isn't "on his chest." His support hand meets the gun on the way to the target. It never comes to his chest..."

lmfao - really???????

How about, SO YOU DONT ACCIDENTALLY SHOOT YOUR SUPPORT HAND

Seriously, you're just fucking trolling now.
4/22/13 8:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26744
your eyes are too fucking slow to notice Robb going through all 4/5 stages of the draw, and they sure as shit are too fucking slow to notice, he leaves his support hand at his side, and doesnt MOVE it until his gun is close to center line.

bringing your hand to your chest as you grip the gun, still holstered is one movement and you arent losing anything....

go out and teach noobies you're super duper draw from holster, grab with both hands immediately technique. I'm sure your students will be as fast as you and Robb in no time..no wait, much more better then Robb
4/22/13 9:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
williepep
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/2/07
Posts: 7289
Owen G,

Once again thanks.



Just the type of information, I need to read through, a nice snapshot.
4/23/13 1:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gforce
33 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13397
Unrelated, note that the two guys in the last photos that Jed posted (Howe and the guy in Multicam) actually know how to wear a drop holster.

The purpose of the drop holster is to clear your armor. You want in the highest possible position that still allows you to clear a heavy vest.

Our whole SOD (K9 handlers, bomb guys, etc) wore drop holsters for a long time. One of my favorite things to do was to ask them "do you know why the drop holster was invented." I got a lot of answers--none ever the right one.

Drop holster down by the knee=sign that someone doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.
4/23/13 1:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3642
Just so I can be relevant here, I'll post the disjointed info on the draw I have next.
4/23/13 1:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3643
And, for those of you interested in a lot of the information I have written as far as CQB tactics, ccw, and combatives - a lot of it is parroted from a local group. One of the guys is SF and I believe is being deployed now or will be very soon. One of the other guys I know is an operator on the department. Anyway, a lot of their stuff is available on video through their facebook page: High Threat Systems LLC

I do have a tendency to like what they teach and how they teach. Basing training and responses based on the "normal" survival response is something I really like. I wish they'd put out some more videos. The give you videos on attacking from a doorway, the normal human response to a life or death situation (with a number of videos to support it), and some current CQB stuff that is taught to the specialty units of the department (Not losers pushing cruisers).

For those of you wanting to gloss over the draw discussion, there is a TON of valuable information and videos on their facebook page. I personally would love to hear any feedback you have on it.
4/23/13 2:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3644
I also tried to pm everybody back that I could. If you didn't receive a reply, let me know so I can get you my email address.
4/23/13 3:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26746
owen - just read all your posts great stuff
4/23/13 5:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gforce
33 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 13399
Owen Gregg - I also tried to pm everybody back that I could. If you didn't receive a reply, let me know so I can get you my email address.

Still waiting for a PM from you if you want me to hook you up w/ the Aimpoint LEO pro deal (if you don't have one already).
4/23/13 9:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
554 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3191

Owen have you taken a class with these HTS cats?  Some of these techniques make me a little uneasy.  

4/23/13 9:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
554 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3192

^Beginning with how that woman is holding the rifle.  

 

 

Also I found this sweet old training pic  

 

4/23/13 10:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
275 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14888
Owen Gregg - And, for those of you interested in a lot of the information I have written as far as CQB tactics, ccw, and combatives - a lot of it is parroted from a local group. One of the guys is SF and I believe is being deployed now or will be very soon. One of the other guys I know is an operator on the department. Anyway, a lot of their stuff is available on video through their facebook page: High Threat Systems LLC

I do have a tendency to like what they teach and how they teach. Basing training and responses based on the "normal" survival response is something I really like. I wish they'd put out some more videos. The give you videos on attacking from a doorway, the normal human response to a life or death situation (with a number of videos to support it), and some current CQB stuff that is taught to the specialty units of the department (Not losers pushing cruisers).

For those of you wanting to gloss over the draw discussion, there is a TON of valuable information and videos on their facebook page. I personally would love to hear any feedback you have on it.

I have a question for the more tacitcally-experienced folks for myself.

The specific idea of basing training on "normal survival responses" seems strange to me. Isn't the point of training to condition something better than the normal response? For example, the normal response when someone is trying to punch you is to lean your head back away from the danger. You see it all the time when amateurs get in street fights. However, boxers train to "stay in the pocket" and to slip punches with lateral head movement. This is a trained, non-natural (but improved) response to danger.

Isn't firearms training for self defense similar? Wouldn't it be preferable to train for optimal technique as a response rather than for what comes "naturally?"

Thanks!
4/23/13 11:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jedburgh1
554 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3193
The best case scenario is to find the optimal technique that is similar to a normal response.

An older example would be the "turtled" isosceles though that has fallen out of favor.

It all depends on the frequency of training. We teach use of cover differently than most folks because we know how most folks use cover and how we can use that to our advantage.

An example of a return to "normal survival response" is the switch from double-tap and assess to a 3-7 shot string. Phone Post 3.0
4/23/13 12:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26747
"For example, the normal response when someone is trying to punch you is to lean your head back away from the danger. You see it all the time when amateurs get in street fights. However, boxers train to "stay in the pocket" and to slip punches with lateral head movement. This is a trained, non-natural (but improved) response to danger. "

????????????????????????????

In boxing, we duck, bob and weave, slip our heads left and right, AND move our heads straight back, just out of range. Show boats will stand there, with there hands at their sides, just moving their heads just out of range, taunting their opponents.

JKD stresses the same, including "swaying back" your head
4/23/13 12:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
275 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14889
sreiter - "For example, the normal response when someone is trying to punch you is to lean your head back away from the danger. You see it all the time when amateurs get in street fights. However, boxers train to "stay in the pocket" and to slip punches with lateral head movement. This is a trained, non-natural (but improved) response to danger. "

????????????????????????????

In boxing, we duck, bob and weave, slip our heads left and right, AND move our heads straight back, just out of range. Show boats will stand there, with there hands at their sides, just moving their heads just out of range, taunting their opponents.

JKD stresses the same, including "swaying back" your head

Dude, respectfully, can you try to refrain from hijacking the thread?

I asked a specific question and gave a specific example that was not meant to be an all-encompassing treatise on the encyclopedia of boxing technique in any way. Anyone would have realized that. I really don't give a shit about JKD or the aspects of boxing I didn't feel it necessary to describe. What I do give a shit about is the concept of basing all of your technique around "natural" responses to something quite unnatural like gunfighting, which is something I don't think you or I can speak on, considering neither of us has ever been in a gunfight.
4/23/13 12:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rhymenoceros
275 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14890
Also, I'm starting a thread so we can continue our "discussion" of the draw without distracting from this thread. It will be on the weapons training subforum.
4/23/13 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3645
Gforce - 
Owen Gregg - I also tried to pm everybody back that I could. If you didn't receive a reply, let me know so I can get you my email address.

Still waiting for a PM from you if you want me to hook you up w/ the Aimpoint LEO pro deal (if you don't have one already).

Gforce, it's telling me you only accept PM's from Pros and friends and will not let me send you one.
4/23/13 2:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3646
Jedburgh1 - 

Owen have you taken a class with these HTS cats?  Some of these techniques make me a little uneasy.  


I have not taken any classes with them, but they are the guys that help with our "in service" training as far as building searches, open field searches, etc.

I forgot about the pronated grip issue. It's a HUGE can of worms. Personally, I run the "normal" or supinated AR grip since I'm just beginning. The pronated grip thing has been a hot topic of debate here locally for a few years. I can't say I personally have any experience with it. What I can say is I've talked to a lot of our SWAT guys. A lot of these guys were Marines and absolutely hated the grip, only later to adapt it and become LOUD advocates of it. Some have not. I don't remember where it came from. Maybe Henk Iverson, but I'm not sure, so don't quote me on it.

The SF guys is the guy demonstrating in the Basic Cornering 101 drill, and you can see he is not using that grip. One of the other main instructors can be seen in this video of a class they hosted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-nmH-SPzGV8

He also does not use the "pronated" grip. I do not know if they specifically teach it.

Their previous facebook page with videos was "IACT Tactical" They have some videos of classes they've put on and some training stuff on there, too.

Here's one of their youtube channels with a few videos of some of the classes with SWAT and some others:

https://www.youtube.com/user/tthrash1000/videos?view=0&flow=grid

If your comfortable putting the information onto a public forum, I'd love to hear any feedback you have. I personally disagree with their point shooting philosophy, but I have disagreements of one sort or another with all training, just as I expect everyone else to. If we don't keep disagreeing and searching for better solutions, we don't grow.
4/23/13 2:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sreiter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26750
"Dude, respectfully"

You've been anything but. Plus you're a little fag for voting me down for the past several days too.
4/23/13 3:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3647
Rhymenoceros - 
Owen Gregg - And, for those of you interested in a lot of the information I have written as far as CQB tactics, ccw, and combatives - a lot of it is parroted from a local group. One of the guys is SF and I believe is being deployed now or will be very soon. One of the other guys I know is an operator on the department. Anyway, a lot of their stuff is available on video through their facebook page: High Threat Systems LLC

I do have a tendency to like what they teach and how they teach. Basing training and responses based on the "normal" survival response is something I really like. I wish they'd put out some more videos. The give you videos on attacking from a doorway, the normal human response to a life or death situation (with a number of videos to support it), and some current CQB stuff that is taught to the specialty units of the department (Not losers pushing cruisers).

For those of you wanting to gloss over the draw discussion, there is a TON of valuable information and videos on their facebook page. I personally would love to hear any feedback you have on it.

I have a question for the more tacitcally-experienced folks for myself.

The specific idea of basing training on "normal survival responses" seems strange to me. Isn't the point of training to condition something better than the normal response? For example, the normal response when someone is trying to punch you is to lean your head back away from the danger. You see it all the time when amateurs get in street fights. However, boxers train to "stay in the pocket" and to slip punches with lateral head movement. This is a trained, non-natural (but improved) response to danger.

Isn't firearms training for self defense similar? Wouldn't it be preferable to train for optimal technique as a response rather than for what comes "naturally?"

Thanks!

I don't have a lot of tactical experience, but I find a lot of similarities between old discussions about MMA and gunfighting. You can absolutely have trained responses that will be different than an "instinctive" response.

The difference between MMA and gunfighting is this: In MMA, you can expose yourself to situations repeatedly without fear of death. And by exposing yourself to it, you can train your body to react with an optimal response; even if that response is the opposite of an "instinctual" response.

In training for gunfights, you simply cannot replicate the level of fear and adrenaline that comes with fighting for your life. You can get damn close to the real thing with simunitions and such, but it just isn't the same. You should begin to see some "too deadly for the ring" parallels in discussions like these. If we can't replicate what happens in real life, how are we sure it will work?

This is also why operators with actual experience are so sought after in the training industry. They have the experience with these situations most of us never will. Having "been there and done that" is experience you can't put a value on.

I guess the short answer to your question, from my point of view is this: It would be preferable to train for optimal technique. The issue becomes a lack of availability of training where you can honestly simulate the environment you might be put in. Just my .02
4/23/13 3:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Owen Gregg
61 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3648
Jedburgh1 - The best case scenario is to find the optimal technique that is similar to a normal response.

An older example would be the "turtled" isosceles though that has fallen out of favor.

It all depends on the frequency of training. We teach use of cover differently than most folks because we know how most folks use cover and how we can use that to our advantage.

An example of a return to "normal survival response" is the switch from double-tap and assess to a 3-7 shot string. Phone Post 3.0

I should have read this before posting. It's much more clear and concise than what I wrote.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.