Center Axis Relock Training

[SA1911]

Is CARs training only available to LEO's? I have read about and find it very interesting. The research I have done states that it is a way more effective system then traditional point and shoot. Normally at 10 yards a person during a time of duress only has an 18-20% target acquistion rate. CARs will allow a person to achieve a 95% plus hit rate. Opinions and where can a citizen get this type of training?

[Thekatar]

There is a member here Robert Desrosiers who teaches CAR, I'm sure he can answer all of your questions.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by SA1911

Is CARs training only available to LEO's? I have read about and find it very interesting. The research In have done states that it is a way more effective system then traditional point and shoot. Normally at 10 yards a person during a time of duress only has an 18-20% target acquistion rate. CARs will allow a personm to achieve a 95% plus hit rate. Opinions and where can a citizen get this type of training?

Talk to Robert Desrosiers. He teaches CAR to civillians.

Your beliefs are misguided. It is merely different, not a miracle. There are aspects that are arguably better and arguably worse, but, at the least, it is another tool in the toolbox.

[SA1911]

I agree MarcS, I know that the criticism of CARs is that the bladed stance has a lower profile that when an individual takes a hit it tends to stack the organs and allow a bullet to travel through multiple organs whereas a straight on stance will allow single penetration. But as you stated indirectly there is a time and place for every technique and another tool in the toolboax can't hurt.

How do I contact Robert Desrosiers ? Is he a member here? Or do I google his name?

[MarcS]

he is on the board. You missed his most recent class by about 3 weeks, unfortunately, but there will be more.

www.argivedefense.com

Just realize that a 95% hit rate in a dynamic, high-stress situation is completely unrealistic regardless of what system you're using. There is also more than just that one criticism, but theres positives and negatives to everything. Fill your toolbox and you'll always have the right tool for the occasion.

In my experiance training some CAR with Bob, i found some confined space techniques i liked and added to my lexicon. It's by no means my "primary system"

[SA1911]

Thanks for the info< I will look into that training.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by SA1911

Thanks for the info< I will look into that training.

I hope you enjoy it and i hope you take the opportunity to train whenever you can, with a wide variety of people, teaching a wide variety of tactics and techniques.

[ReefBlue]

I took the training a few weeks ago.

Great stuff.


It was a two day class, 8 hours each day.


One of the major points I walked away from the class with was this:

Standing on a firing line, hurling rounds downrange without any context doesn't do much good.

I am by no means an expert, but I did take the class, so feel free to ask away.

[ReefBlue]

Next class March 29/30 in Hellertown, PA (just south of Allentown).

300 bucks.


http://www.pafoa.org/forum/training-...sociation.html

[Robert Desrosiers]

Originally Posted by SA1911

I agree MarcS, I know that the criticism of CARs is that the bladed stance has a lower profile that when an individual takes a hit it tends to stack the organs and allow a bullet to travel through multiple organs whereas a straight on stance will allow single penetration. But as you stated indirectly there is a time and place for every technique and another tool in the toolboax can't hurt.

How do I contact Robert Desrosiers ? Is he a member here? Or do I google his name?

I just noticed this thread this morning and replied with a rather lengthy explanation. For some strange reason, it never took. Very annoying.

However, I will not have the time to try to re-cover the same ground as my last, "lost" response. I will try and remained focused on the above perception because there is some much to cover.

In regards to the "stacking of organs", I have encountered this position before, I just do not find much merit in the idea that it is more advantageous to be hit straight on, and have fewer organs hit than if struck in the side. That argument tends to lack context in the greater scheme of things when taking into account other variables that occur in the overall dynamics in a gunfight. Now understand that I am no expert in regards to physiology and human anatomy so bare with me.

What anyone should desire as a natural by-product of our efforts when sending rounds into our adversary is of course "immediate incapacitation". However, of course it is easier said than done. This is not achieved merely by striking as many organs as possible but by actually hitting areas what will cause complete cessation of hostilities and not allow our adversary to continue on fighting IMMEDIATELY. Our best chance in making this happen is a round entering and disrupting our brain cavity and/Or spinal cord. Everything else including heart and lung tissue disruption is not a guarantee. Disruption or destruction of these organs will eventually take its toll but may take more time that than what we hoped for.(Think FBI, Miami shootout) It is not necessarily how many things you hit, but WHAT you hit that gives you the desired response and or result.

Different areas of the body provide different levels of protection to our internal organs as per mother natures design. For the most part unless I'm mistaken most trainers and or schools have taught for some time is to shoot at areas such as the theoretic cavity with then intent of achieving deep "corporal" hits to reach areas such as lungs but even more so the heart. There is also the Idea of the "Target T" which is an area, which spans from the area around the eye sockets and then extends down the centerline of the body to the pelvic region and mirrors the pathway of our spinal cord and brain cavity. It is believed that this target "T" provides the path of least resistance to these areas. Not only on the frontal area but also from the rear, but not from the sides with the exception of the neck up to the base of the skull(medula omblagata).

If it was eminently more desirable to strike someone from the sides than the frontal then the above docture would be have to be altered greatly. Though you always take what you are given in regards to "targets of opportunity", it may not be your number one choice.


In C.A.R., we utilize a bladed stance as a base line if facing the threat head on. This can alter some-what depending on if we choose to initiate some form of dynamic movement.(forward movement/oblique angles) If a round strikes you in the arm, the pathway to the spinal cord and heart is much more difficult than if it would be a straight on shot to the chest. The bullet has much farther to travel and will encounter more obstacles along the way if it ever reaches those areas at all. It also has a greater chance of being deflected by parts of our internal structure during that trip. The left arm alone can provide much more resistance to a bullet as it passes through than the resistance that the same bullet would meet on its way to the heart or spine from a front or rear hit if lined up with those internal structures.

Understand, I would in no way advocate that the arm is a great barrier in blocking bullets. Then again neither is the rib cage. The human body in general does not do well against high velocity projectiles.

There are other concerns as well in regards to body armor. But that is a slightly different topic and not an issue for those who do not wear a vest for a living.

If you are interested in discussing things further, feel free to contact me at 267-968-0122. There is a CAR/IPD class running at the end of the month.