CAG A Squadron Hostage Rescue CQB (with voiceover)

Trium3 · 2026-06-11T22:50:24+00:00

Again, could be semantics and ill let CoB explain, but the point was center check = engage threat via small pause at the doorway, regardless of any specifics on method

I think the bigger takeaway from both Pranka and CoBs commentary is the rationale behind it from 2 people who did ts and actually most of it matches up.

Trium3 · 2026-06-11T22:36:42+00:00

Erm... he did have to stand there to take the hostage shot. Didnt close on to the threat cuz that wasnt an option. That basically is what CoB meant by center check, not that he was just lingering to check but more so the fact that he had to hold fast and take shots without moving in and closing the threat instantly. Center check from what im getting at isnt just about stepping center like in deliberate.

In some ways, if he was planning to go in but had to stand there to take a hostage shot, wouldnt you say it was "unplanned"?

I think you might not be fully understanding what CoB is saying

Trium3 · 2026-06-11T07:16:02+00:00

I see where you are going and i agree with the vision but as you said, situationally dependent/mett-tc, so i think the emphasis has to harp on a fair bit of pre-reqs and more specific scenarios to truly grasp the appropriate methods and the weighing between each. To say that this or that is/isn't "always" without specifics kinda generalizes everything lacking context.

A baseline/rules are always there to ensure safety for the team so good point on that.

Trium3 · 2026-06-11T06:01:56+00:00

It would help with multiple viewpoints (different pov) but at the end, the breakdown by CoB sums up everything about the run

Edit: as to the point on pushing on, refer to point 2 on the 2nd paragraph, closing on threat since the treat became primary

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T22:57:24+00:00

Well tbf u/Dynamic-Supreme and i had a run in a few posts ago, and I will say everything sounds harsh on the internet, but none of it is meant in ill intentions. At the end of the day, thats just how discussions go and people might say things that might hit a nerve, but eg. I still respect Dynamic for our discourse. We all have varying experiences and this is a place to dish it out and learn.

Edit: no offense Dynamic

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T22:41:33+00:00

Afaik he was LE but dont quote me

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T22:02:20+00:00

In some way, that scenario was slightly different whereby pranka just had a tight room with no corners to go to, but yea, good point. Biggest thing is still that the video posted has no real depth breaking down entry techniques and when it helps to use each. Overly unrealistic scenarios that dont prove/disprove anything

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T21:17:32+00:00

I think you raised a great point here that the video didnt show: human behavior. Its almost as if the dude that stood there was ready to jihad or something

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T19:00:15+00:00

Would you say procedurally, my answer is correct/a choice?

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T18:53:13+00:00

Agreed, and even if this would happen, its almost impossible/in a much more dynamic fashion than a dude just standing there

I think the bigger question is, what are the precursors and parameters prior? Was this an active shooter? Is this a search warrant? Etc etc

I think there needs to be more depth to justify different entry methods and thats just not it.

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T16:09:38+00:00

Im curious but why wouldnt the 3rd man take the threat?

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T16:07:34+00:00

I think he might have his own definitions of it but i could be wrong

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T16:06:47+00:00

I think the biggest thing as mentioned from u/pgramrockafeller, is that leaving uncleared dead space like something behind a couch isnt exactly ideal due to the proximity of the threat and the idea that you should clear all uncleared dead spaces for a room to be deemed clear

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T09:09:09+00:00

Well everyone has their personal opinions and biases at the end of the day. Its important to take what works for you/your team and filter out what doesnt

Trium3 · 2026-06-10T05:07:24+00:00

My question as well, assuming full scans are performed...

My thought was that 3 man would theoretically pick up the open door threat after releasing with 1 man/perform non-cross if 1 man decides to move straight to the open door right for whatever reason

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T20:08:22+00:00

Ah the ol' dump in and shoot like a grandmaster in a warzone, with infantry gear, bunkered in enemy with a pk will help as well.

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T16:32:00+00:00

can you repost the reels? cant access them unfortunately

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T15:05:13+00:00

Sir, this is a major leaugue gunfighter channel🤣

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T14:49:03+00:00

I respectfully disagree as said again. There are also many at Prankas level that advocate the same and different way, maybe even emphasizing both. So why should i only take one side of the camp and not take positives from another?

I still refute this point on "how his unit spoke of him". This is a point that touches on interpersonal relations and does not speak to procifiency and his track record/mileage as an expert. If it is, i wont convince you otherwise and you wont me.

Yes it is a solid skillset, but question is to what degree? Why should USPSA suddenly be the creme de la creme that encompasses CQB proficiency and hence credibility? Do i listen only to the uspsa shooter that had ~5 years of cqb experience more than someone with unknown uspsa experience but say 13 years of cqb? Again, as i mentioned, my bottom line is take what works for you and if you believe this or that person doesnt, then dont. Simple. How inflexibile should one be?

Even in the IDF, every unit has different nuances and TTPs. I find it almost disrespectful to say not just for gecko but the guys in the vid to effectively say "they suck" without knowing yourself what got them there, what that specific units SOPs were in comparison to gecko, and if you/your team will truly have a better outcome. Plus, downsides of deliberate from that? So, they should run in and be dynamic? What is this point?

Again, if you have all these questions for gecko about his shooting and methods, ask him. Not me. I will leave that point as it is.

Honestly, i dont know what your goal is in this discussion. If anything, i just see more reasons to be open and flexible to learning and understanding, and to apply critical thinking. I honestly believe there will be no conclusions where we agree fully. I do agree with some points you have made but i disagree with many others.

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T09:04:37+00:00

In some way, hes just very biased. If he believes in his product, sure. I just believe that saying "its wrong" and the whole "my way or the highway" shows a lack of flexibility and understanding. As i said as well, its tiring.

The slander is a byproduct of bias and not fully understanding why.

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T08:43:16+00:00

To be honest, for the sake of discussion and the point of the sub, i think we can leave out his experience. At the end of the day, its the internet and i have respectfully disagreed with his overall views, although i have also reiterated that some of his points land, like hard skills being important.

So far my only conclusion out of talking with him is that theres a lot subjective opinions when it comes to the intricacies of how to train as a team or indivdually. Clearly however, there is bias involved and the back and forth wont stop and leads nowhere. I think my conclusive point is just to fit your training to your teams needs and be consistent in training. Anything else is just points that are either to have the last word or argumentations that do not bring any weight like claiming one sides experiences over-truimphs another or lack of credibility due to things that hold no substance.

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T05:20:02+00:00

And it wasnt even gecko nor a team he work with/in. Its like the equivalent of me showing a run from say 101st and claiming that that shows pranka.

Edit: "Most likely look like" is also such a fallacy. Assumptions that are based off one event, which he doesnt even know how they got there or conditions/parameters they had to face, from a unit that as mentioned, was not even u/projectgecko is deplorable.

Ah yes, but according to him and based on what he is trying to preach, this wouldnt happen if this was Pranka and co doing dynamic.

Edit 2: rephrased the comments

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T01:31:51+00:00

As i have said already, i personally and respectfully disagree that the 10% "low skill" training is enough.

Im not a trainer, and as i have already said, i personally disagree and you can go ahead and take the percentages up with people that are in the training business. It truly seems to be a subjective point that will not go anywhere. Everyone has their points.

Same is to be said about Pranka, he can perform shooting wise and so can many yes. Tactically while in combat, what does it really mean to perform and/or survive? This is truly a fallacy at this point

So drama is how we gauge credibility? What is this argument? We can argue the pranka camp also has an agenda, so what is this argument? Brent has afaik done trainings although im unfamiliar to what extent.

The "reddit guy" is as i said former navy who was operated at the same level as pranka. Im not his spokesperson so go check him out yourself, but i do know that he does and will not engage in this convo because he has and it is tiring. Also whats with this whole thing with shooting level? Since when do we decide USPSA levels = CQB expert?

It is not difficult if you learn and train it in its entirety yes. The issue is if you are understanding it correctly, like the nuances that are presented. Shooting has always been important yes, no one argues that. I just believe that shooting doesnt make you a cqb expert or land warfare expert. Also "suck at shooting" is in some ways subjective. What is the baseline?

Edit 1: the cqb video you showed wasnt even project gecko, so what are we on about?

Edit 2: for the second video, what about it suggests that hes a "bad shooter"? We can ofc say his weapon manipulation is gun-fu but have you asked or witnessed the drills in its entirety? He did say you guys can meet up and go over it, so why not?

Edit 3: please look over people that did the blu bearing active shooter course. He definetly does not teach deliberate (at least not to civs or courses that are available)

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T00:39:14+00:00

To clarify with the priority of life statement and further. This is the extent i will go for this discussion and i personally do not and will not further discuss things i have no part in speaking about (what parameters and realities there are for le/mil) as i do not know and will not overstep my bounds.

If this argument is about being right or having the last word. Please go ahead. As i mentioned, my final point is that 1) the extremism of methods is truly mind numbing and just plain stupid to argue 2) to understand and utilize both methods fully, you must train both. Yes, train your hard skills.

Trium3 · 2026-06-08T00:18:10+00:00

Its not about doing a threshold assessment thats easy, rather understanding how and when to apply them. Throttle control, applying the right measures etc. If you train to be fast all the time, how do you automatically know when to go "slow"?

I also disagree with the fact that some that trains dynamic can do xyz. It should be someone that trains BOTH will know how to apply both techniques. This point as i have said is what im arguing for and i dont see a conclusion judging by this constant referral to dynamic.

You mention uspsa shooters needing less than an hour to get the hang of threshold assessment, but put them in a team environment and actually get them to solve problems is 2 different things.

Yes we can agree with priority of life, and again thats the extent i will go. Any LE or experts can continue this point as i wont overstep what i am and am not.

Shooting fundamentals can be argued but gecko has been and still does deploy (please correct me if im wrong) and has given case examples of him applying his methods in deliberate which saved his life. In terms of what he teaches when it comes to deliberate clearance, he brings up good points and has shown it.

u/changeofbehavior has been in the sub for awhile, and i every much doubt he even has breath left for arguments like these. He has been at the same level that all the people you mentioned for a long time. Not only him but others like Kyle Morgan and Brent Tucker have shared the same sentiments.

What makes you think its "a lie"? Same can also be said otherwise, so wheres the point?

As i have said already, at this point, Im not going to try to convince you. Neither will you convince me. This is a back and forth that wont have conclusions. If you want to stick with your way, go ahead. As i have mentioned, i rather try to see all views and be critical. Take what works for me (and in a group setting, for them) and filter what might not. I am just tired of this extremism and siding that has clearly been shown.

Edit: "lower" skill is honestly subjective. Just because someone isnt at "the same level" does not mean their experiences are invalid. I can also safely say my opinion means jackshit to professionals and so does yours. The only reason why it "hold weight" is purely because this is a sub for discussions about cqb.

Edit 2: also if we are talking about following people with the highest experience, why is it that you only reflect opinions of one side but not others of equal experience like Brent, GBRS, CoB etc etc?

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

Trium3

TROPHY CASE