I was at the Calgary gun show this year showing off my wares and a person came over to examine a S2. He picked it up and shouldered it, grabbing the forend using what I can only describe as the Magpul overgrip method.
This prompted a lively discussion with my helper. We are in agreement that there are a lot of new shooting methods coming out where an instructor with “Street Cred”, that is someone who has shot at people for a living, comes up with a new idea and markets it as the newest greatest thing.
What I find is that often people invent new things for the sake of inventing new things and use the cognitive fallacy of false attribution (claiming something as the reason for something else when they are in fact there is no causality).
Without naming names, let’s take a trip through inductive reasoning.
Premise 1)
Man trained as part of _______ where he won many harrowing gun battles.
Premise 2)
He used the methods taught to him by that elite unit. Those methods clearly worked and therefore are proven and workable.
Premise 3)
He comes back to America and develops his own methods to sell to the public. He uses his past exploits to justify why you should trust his new system.
Conclusion – His fancy new method was never tested in battle. Its value is therefore called into question as a fighting method. It may perform on a 3-gun range but can not be proven like his original skill set was.
Why can't he pass on his proven skill set?
Back to the Magpul overgrip method. It is touted as a way to increase stability. When I instruct I tell my students, I tell them that the farther they grip the rifle down the forend, the more stability they will gain; it does not matter if they use a forgrip, angled grip or the traditional hand grip. The trade off to gripping farther down the forend, is they will fatigue quicker. All the Magpul overgrip method does is adds a silly grip to a proven theory and falsely claims the stability benefit as a result.
But if instructors taught what worked and did not invent new stuff they would have a hard time marketing themselves and standing out as a brand. From a marketing standpoint, I can't blame them; they just want to make money. But from a gunfighting standpoint, I think they are subtly cheating the consumer out of what they should know and what they hope to learn.
I think the moral of the story is don't buy into every silly little method. Critically ask yourself if these new novel methods actually make you a better gunfighter or if you are simply lining someone else's pockets or worse yet, buying into a cool looking fad.
