stance, center-axis-relockI’ve been looking into the center axis relock system. Even though it was designed for law enforcement and military, there are a lot of things about it that also make it appealing for civilian purposes: a more stable platform, more instinctive defensive posture, more natural sight distance, etc. However, professional training seems hard to come by if you aren’t in law enforcement.
I realize you won’t get the full benefit without training, but for those of you who have taken a class, would the basics be beneficial to practice on your own? In other words, is it a relatively forgiving system that is still helpful if you get it close but not perfect, or is it something that will do more harm than good unless you drill a lot with professional feedback?
Karl, you cite a few of the “selling points” of CAR as espoused by the late Paul Castle. Mr. Castle founded Sabre Tactical and marketed Center Axis Relock to LE agencies. While I don’t fault Mr. Castle, much has been said about CAR being a rehash and repackaging of techniques used by other agencies well before he showed up…
With that being said, there is validity to the technique in very narrow circumstances. In my own experience, CAR-style shooting is applicable in very confined spaces (shooting from vehicles) and extremely narrow passageways that prevent a natural gait or platform. While CAR allows for very quick recovery shot to shot, there is significantly more to a gunfight than a split time. In my opinion, Mr. Castle took a technique for very narrow circumstances and attempted to apply it in more environments that don’t call for the technique. And yes, I have taken some CAR-influenced courses.
Please allow me the liberty of dissecting CAR.
Platform – I don’t agree with the extremely bladed platform. It is not a natural fighting platform and significantly limits one’s ability to do a few things:
Moving – Maintaining the CAR platform, your ability to shoot on the move is severely limited. Comparing distance covered, accuracy and shots fired, a natural toes, knees, hips, shoulders square to the target while shooting on the move was more advantageous than trying to maintain the CAR shooting platform.
Multiple Targets – Transitioning from threat to threat is limited if you attempt to maintain the “body index.” Faster and easier to drive the gun with a natural squared platform that many people can maintain >180 degrees of engagement. CAR has a very narrow cone of fire and footwork has to change substantially, especially when transitioning to a target to the flank opposite of the shooting hand.
Moving Targets – Tracking on moving targets is very limited for the same reason above. Very easy to outflank a CAR shooter and force a footwork change within a very narrow angle.
Bi-lateral Operation – The world is not made for R handed or L handed shooters and any proficient gun fighter should be able to operate their chosen weapon system ambidextrously. Significant amount footwork to change the side of the body that you are working the gun from. Added footwork = added time and delay.
Consistency – CAR does a poor job of translating to other systems. A natural squared platform can be used with a handgun, shotgun, rifle or submachine-gun without issue. While CAR does “short stock” a long gun, it isn’t ideal for anything other than bad breath distances.
Unsupported Shooting - Very applicable to the private citizen, as there is a strong chance that you will be shooting one-handed; fighting or grappling with your adversary, shielding/covering family members or holding your coffee… No CAR instructor has given me a good reasonable answer on how to apply CAR unsupported.
Yes, CAR does bring the gun closer to your eyes, assisting with shot to shot recovery and is a by-product of the bladed platform rather than a benefit. But, no one has ever explained to me what a more “natural sight distance” is. Because of CAR’s bladed platform, the shooter is forced to sight with their support side eye, or the non-dominant eye for the majority of shooters. Mounting in such a manner that CAR proscribes, the dominant (shooting) hand does a fine job of obscuring a significant amount of forward and peripheral vision from the shooting side eye. I also question the utility and it being “natural.” Humans have front set eyes (predator) that provide for very good visual acuity and depth perception compared to lesser animals (prey). Under stress, humans square off to the perceived threat, bringing their eyes to the threat (taking full advantage of stereoscopic vision) and the rest of the body follows. I have seen CAR-influenced/trained shooters absolutely resort to the natural position of being square to the threat in training evolutions where “targets” shoot back with non-lethal training ammunition (NLTA).
There are reasons why contemporary firearms and tactics instructors DON’T teach CAR. In my opinion, it doesn’t work outside of some very narrow circumstances that CAR and Castle tried to escape out of and apply CAR to a wider battlespace and audience.
As a civilian, you do have the opportunity to receive high quality firearms and tactics training. In the US, there are a significant number of credible training providers that train lawful and responsible citizens.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.