For seven years, I worked for Guns & Ammo magazine, where I wrote the monthly Personal Security column under the byline Jim Grover. (At the time, I was assigned to a highly classified special-mission unit and couldn’t use my real name.) Being involved in actual operations and the training necessary to prepare for them provided me with an extremely realistic perspective on combat. 

DURING THAT TIME, the editor of another magazine under the same publisher asked my opinion about the tactic of using a handgun in each hand. I literally laughed out loud — this was well before the advent of smartphones and “LOL.” 

He and I went on to debate it. He had never been in the service or worked as a police officer and had no operational experience, but he insisted that the tactic had some merit. I said that I found the idea ludicrous, and I still do. 

MY THINKING WAS CLEAR and logical: There would be the obvious carry- and-support issue; it would complicate reloading and efficiently clearing any malfunction; it would make physically dealing with any noncom- batants dangerous and difficult, if not impossible; and it would make accurate shooting — responsible shooting— slow and extremely cumbersome. Dumb idea all around. 

He wrote it up in his magazine. He and a former South African police- man and magazine contributor went to the range and “tested” it. The results were predictable, and the tactic proved not even marginally successful.

What irritates me the most about this whole concept is that it sprouted from thinking about what may “push the envelope” and/or the sheer tedium of continuously writing about firing handguns. There is, after all, only so much that can be written about the subject.

The same trend is now happening in combatives. Our compatriots have started talking about the notion of dual deployment of weapon systems — specifically, a handgun and a knife simultaneously. I still believe this is an absolutely ridiculous concept and something that attempts to artificially push the capability bell curve forward.

IMAGINE YOURSELF in a potentially lethal situation in which you need to immediately take action and the use of deadly force is warranted. Why the hell would you ever risk using an edged weapon first when you’re far more lethal, effective and fast with just your firearm? It makes no sense and is a silly idea fostered by people who think it’s somehow “next level.”

I’d be interested to see that next- level reload or malfunction drill. We could call it the “Edward Scissorhands technique.” 

Similar things can be said about myriad unarmed combatives techniques that seemingly seek to com- plicate the utterly simple undertaking of hurting someone or making an attacker unconscious to eliminate a threat. I’ve said for years that, in fact, it’s not hurting people that is hard at all; it’s doing it under duress against a committed assailant and in consideration of the consequences that is hard. 

I’M NOT SUGGESTING that critical thought shouldn’t occur with respect to tactics, techniques and procedures or that risks shouldn’t be taken to further develop equipment and/or capabilities. Certainly, trial attempts of whatever technique with the intent of meaningfully becoming more competent matter. They really, really do. It’s just that when ridiculousness creeps into the mix, someone has to throw the BS flag. 

Probably the most annoying thing about concepts like these is the high melodrama overlay that’s often applied to them. Everyone gets it: deadly circumstances. But how about focusing on the very real, concrete principles and TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) that will get the job done instead of veering into the almost comical? And I use the phrase “almost comical” because what I’m talking about involves life and limb; otherwise, it would just be comical. 

MY ADVICE? Focus on fundamentals. Develop your skills to a standard that’s above average. Train hard until you can execute your moves during credible attacks from training partners who are pushing the limits and not just behaving like statues. The solutions aren’t hard, but delivering them in an all-out fight will be. 

Even if the kinds of tactics mentioned previously were viable and effective — and, in my opinion, they’re not — a lot of what’s circulating today as “next level” wouldn’t fall within the rules of engagement on a battlefield. At a minimum, such techniques would be considered egregious, so how could they possibly be legal on the street? 

Sitting in a courtroom, faced with a jury of your peers, people who are considering what you did under the sterile hum of fluorescent lights, you’d better make sure you did everything right. 

Sign Up for Newsletter