High ready or low ready?

[Paladin]

Do you use high ready or low ready? I have long been a fan of low ready, but was always curious about how some fast draw experts and special ops types use high ready.

Now we have some new information:

...Erick Gelhaus’ talk about ready positions and “mistake of fact” shootings.

He reviewed many recent studies about the use of different ready positions affecting shooter ability to make correct use of force decisions. The high ready (gun near face, muzzle pointed up) is perhaps 0.1 sec faster to get gun to target than lower ready positions, but in well designed experiments, shooters using the high ready position made 30% more errors in shooting decisions. On the street this translates to “they shot people that should not have been shot”. Erick made the argument that lower ready positions sacrifice very little speed to provide significant reduction in unjustified use of force.

-Karl Rehn

COL Applegate did an outstanding job showing the benefits of low ready back in the 1940s(integrating point shooting and sighted shooting), but I think this information is exciting to show there is a measurable safety difference in using the low ready approach

[oljames3]

I attended Gelhaus' presentation at Tac-Con 2022. Turns out he was a student in US Army 15E Pershing Missile Crewmember AIT at Fort Sill, OK, when I was the Branch Chief. Smallest world. The data Gelhaus presented was compelling.

No one position is always best. My choice of ready position varies by firearm and situation. For long guns, I prefer low ready. For handguns I prefer high compressed ready or averted ready.

For handguns, I like the way Karl Rehn explains ready positions in his safety briefing at KR Training. He uses a high compressed ready that is count three of the four-count draw stroke as describe by the late Paul Gomez. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZfgutNufU This position places the handgun in an easily supported position that does not obscure one's view, points the muzzle in a safe direction, and keeps the muzzle below the berm.

John Corriea, Active Self Protection, describes it as the direction of least consequence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n9CClf1FCM No one position is always best.

[Tex1961]

I'm a big fan of compressed low ready myself. I should always be a part of your holster draw routine anyway. In my mind this position has numerous advantages over others. (situation dependent of course).

Speed. A simple wrist snap and your on target I personally find that my body is a natural pointer, by being in a compressed state my muzzle has a natural point of aim. And adjustments are quick.

Not allowing BG to slap or take your gun away in close quarters or coming around corners. (Self explanatory).

Reducing muscle strain. In a long stressful situation such as search and destroy. I'E walking around your house at 2am keeping your pistol close to your core will reduce muscle strain and reduces nervous tics. This also can allow for quicker target acquisition.

Needless to say any SD situation where the target is at a longer distance changes the game. However At compressed ready a quick arm extension is pretty quick.

[Paladin]

For handguns, I like the way Karl Rehn explains ready positions in his safety briefing at KR Training. He uses a high compressed ready that is count two of the four-count draw stroke as describe by the late Paul Gomez. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZfgutNufU This position places the handgun in an easily supported position that does not obscure one's view, points the muzzle in a safe direction, and keeps the muzzle below the berm.

Its interesting that people use different terminology to describe the same thing.

Paul Gomez talks about Count #3 position, which I use. Jim Cirillo and Roger Philips videos showed me the massive value of the #3 position. The NRA uses the terminology "retention ready" that in the latest powerpoints can include #3 position. I've heard the position also described as compressed ready.

I think of "high" ready as muzzle pointing upwards and while it can aid rapid sight acquisition I generally avoid it.

[Paladin]

Looks like John Correia uses the term "high" compressed ready as well. The comments to the video are helpful as John misses some of the context as to how and why the #3 position is used. In weapon retention situations firing would normally be done at the #3 position.

[LTUME1978]

My training comes from many classes with Paul Howe at CSAT. He recommends a high ready (muzzle up at about 70-75 degrees and close to the body (you can find that on some of his you tube or Facebook videos). He does that so that we can see the adversary for solid target discretion and NOT have the muzzle pointing at any part of anyone's body. He has us go the Sul position, if needed, due to people very close around us or moving through crowds. What Correia teaches is not good on either where he is holding the pistol or taking repeated bad shots just to best the clock as he did in the video.

Paul is very demanding on shot placement (spine box/high thoracic). For those that don't know him, he was career military with 10 years in Delta including visits to Mogadishu (team lead in "Black Hawk Down" event) and Panama as well as a lot of other places he can't talk about. His last years in Delta were spent training other Delta Team members. He survived all of that without being shot so I listen to what he tells me as his methods have worked well in very difficult situations. His standards test has someone going from his version of high ready to a shot in the spine box (6" X 13" box) in 1 sec or less. That is very doable with practice (and should be practiced often to maintain proficiency).

I highly recommend his training classes. Reasonably priced and you will learn a lot. Just something to think about.

[Paladin]

My training comes from many classes with Paul Howe at CSAT. He recommends a high ready (muzzle up at about 70-75 degrees and close to the body (you can find that on some of his you tube or Facebook videos). He does that so that we can see the adversary for solid target discretion and NOT have the muzzle pointing at any part of anyone's body. He has us go the Sul position, if needed, due to people very close around us or moving through crowds. What Correia teaches is not good on either where he is holding the pistol or taking repeated bad shots just to best the clock as he did in the video.

Paul is very demanding on shot placement (spine box/high thoracic). For those that don't know him, he was career military with 10 years in Delta including visits to Mogadishu (team lead in "Black Hawk Down" event) and Panama as well as a lot of other places he can't talk about. His last years in Delta were spent training other Delta Team members. He survived all of that without being shot so I listen to what he tells me as his methods have worked well in very difficult situations. His standards test has someone going from his version of high ready to a shot in the spine box (6" X 13" box) in 1 sec or less. That is very doable with practice (and should be practiced often to maintain proficiency).

I highly recommend his training classes. Reasonably priced and you will learn a lot. Just something to think about.

Paul Howe is first rate for sure!

I use SUL position as well. Having taught students through realistic scenarios I have seen serious issues with high ready... like pointing the (replica) pistol at their own head... with no strong advantages. I know high ready works for Paul Howe, but I am not convinced its useful for the wider community. Would love to pick his brain on why he prefers high ready to low ready. I know he knows about Position #3 ready because I demonstrated it to him when I trained with him. I imagine his main concern with Position #3 would be muzzle sweeping, which is certainly a real world concern.

[The Annoyed Man]

I haven't had the training some of you have had, but I think that low or high ready is a variable technique depending on the circumstances at the time and place, and upon what kind of weapon you're using. A couple of years ago, I watched a video presentation by Sean Ryan (former SEAL and CIA contractor) and Mike Glover (former Green Beret and CIA contractor) on the differences between clearing a room/house with an AR, when carried at the low ready versus the high ready. They both talked about the reasoning behind why they used either the high or low ready. In both cases, the bottom line was that they used one or the other method because that's how they were trained in their respective service branches.

It seemed like both methods had their advantages and disadvantages. The one thing I recall from the SEAL "high port" method was that it made it easier to use the muzzle of the gun as a striking weapon. The SF low ready method taught by the Army was marginally safer in shoot-house training. The conclusion I drew from that difference is that whichever method you should use is very dependent on your situation. Just maybe...at least for me...which I would use would depend on whether I'm alone or working with someone else.

[srothstein]

...Erick Gelhaus’ talk about ready positions and “mistake of fact” shootings.

He reviewed many recent studies about the use of different ready positions affecting shooter ability to make correct use of force decisions. The high ready (gun near face, muzzle pointed up) is perhaps 0.1 sec faster to get gun to target than lower ready positions, but in well designed experiments, shooters using the high ready position made 30% more errors in shooting decisions. On the street this translates to “they shot people that should not have been shot”. Erick made the argument that lower ready positions sacrifice very little speed to provide significant reduction in unjustified use of force.

I think this is not a very good study and that it appears to conflate a correlation with a cause-effect relationship. I do not see how the position the gun is carried in could possibly affect the decision to shoot. Therefore I think there is some other factor that is affecting both the decision to shoot and the decision on how to carry. My initial gut guess would be a matter of training since both decisions are made based on training.

It is an interesting correlation, but it really means we need more research into it.

[Paladin]

...Erick Gelhaus’ talk about ready positions and “mistake of fact” shootings.

He reviewed many recent studies about the use of different ready positions affecting shooter ability to make correct use of force decisions. The high ready (gun near face, muzzle pointed up) is perhaps 0.1 sec faster to get gun to target than lower ready positions, but in well designed experiments, shooters using the high ready position made 30% more errors in shooting decisions. On the street this translates to “they shot people that should not have been shot”. Erick made the argument that lower ready positions sacrifice very little speed to provide significant reduction in unjustified use of force.

I think this is not a very good study and that it appears to conflate a correlation with a cause-effect relationship. I do not see how the position the gun is carried in could possibly affect the decision to shoot. Therefore I think there is some other factor that is affecting both the decision to shoot and the decision on how to carry. My initial gut guess would be a matter of training since both decisions are made based on training.

It is an interesting correlation, but it really means we need more research into it.

I can tell you with certainty that the correlation is true. You have to see and understand before you can shoot, but unfortunately most are not trained properly to do so. I walked through a scenario with Paul Howe where my blue gun was aimed at his chest. With a pistol aimed at his chest I could not see his hands or what was or wasn't in them. It would have been much better for me to be at a low ready position where I could see and understand faster... and therefore respond more quickly and appropriately. The #3 position would also allow me to see and understand quickly and shoot even faster. Jim Cirillo has some outstanding material on the subject, showing that he could see and understand very quickly from the #3 position and even when he was in his 70s, from the #3 position he could shoot faster than world class pistol competitors... using the proper technique he still hit what he was aiming at.

[Tex1961]

...Erick Gelhaus’ talk about ready positions and “mistake of fact” shootings.

He reviewed many recent studies about the use of different ready positions affecting shooter ability to make correct use of force decisions. The high ready (gun near face, muzzle pointed up) is perhaps 0.1 sec faster to get gun to target than lower ready positions, but in well designed experiments, shooters using the high ready position made 30% more errors in shooting decisions. On the street this translates to “they shot people that should not have been shot”. Erick made the argument that lower ready positions sacrifice very little speed to provide significant reduction in unjustified use of force.

I think this is not a very good study and that it appears to conflate a correlation with a cause-effect relationship. I do not see how the position the gun is carried in could possibly affect the decision to shoot. Therefore I think there is some other factor that is affecting both the decision to shoot and the decision on how to carry. My initial gut guess would be a matter of training since both decisions are made based on training.

It is an interesting correlation, but it really means we need more research into it.

I can tell you with certainty that the correlation is true. You have to see and understand before you can shoot, but unfortunately most are not trained properly to do so. I walked through a scenario with Paul Howe where my blue gun was aimed at his chest. With a pistol aimed at his chest I could not see his hands or what was or wasn't in them. It would have been much better for me to be at a low ready position where I could see and understand faster... and therefore respond more quickly and appropriately. The #3 position would also allow me to see and understand quickly and shoot even faster. Jim Cirillo has some outstanding material on the subject, showing that he could see and understand very quickly from the #3 position and even when he was in his 70s, from the #3 position he could shoot faster than world class pistol competitors... using the proper technique he still hit what he was aiming at.

^^^THIS^^^

During a SD situation you will already be experiencing an adrenaline dump. Narrowed vision and all. Now let's take that narrow vision and block it with a handgun. You can be so focused on the sights that you lose everything else around you. In #3 as Paladin has done a very good job of explaining will allow a more visible picture of not only our assailant but a larger site (not sight) picture overall. And of course every other advantage that he as mentioned.

[AndyC1911]

Low for me so I can see more of the potential threat better - it specifically helped me to not shoot someone who had pulled a pistol but was struggling with a stuck safety, as one example. Compression I generally only use when in close or confined in some way eg. doorway entry.

Thing is, both high and low have their pros and cons - before picking one over the other, be aware what the pros and cons are and choose accordingly (dependent on the circumstances at that time).

[Paladin]

Jeff Gurwitch has a good breakdown for when (with a rifle):

High vs Low Ready; Its not which is best, but when is each method the best!


This makes sense to me... with a rifle.