Thanks to the internet there is a proliferation of open-source material on tactics the likes of which has never existed. In many ways this is valuable. The serious student of the craft can pick up nuances and details from other’s approaches to solving tactical problems. But the serious student has experience and an educated eye. The beginner, or even someone with experience whose professional path has not involved conflict with determined and trained adversaries, can easily be seduced by flashy tactics based on theory. And there is so much out there that is either based in theory, or sloppily executed without proper understanding.

The cold hard truth though is that hunting armed men is a time for practicality, ruthlessness, and precision developed through hard-earned skill. There is no shortcut, no “magic technique,” no way to stack the odds in your favor without putting in the difficult work required as an individual and a team. Caveat Emptor, buyer beware, holds true when seeking out tactical knowledge as well. So how do we evaluate what we see regarding tactics?

CQB, MOUT, or SUT, the principles remain the same. Interlocking fields of fire, 360 degree security, maintaining initiative, communication, movement, and so on. CQB, at its heart, is small unit tactics in a compressed time and space. Finding, fixing, and flanking are as relevant now as they were in Greece and Rome. The one on one civilian or LE gunfight is in principle no different than a duel in feudal Japan or a gunfight in the old west.

Having said that, technically we are probably at the historical height of the warrior’s craft. There are individuals with a huge amount of direct combat experience at the highest levels and institutions with a collective amount of experience that is historically unprecedented. So while the principles are historic and universal, the understanding of their application is quite possibly at its zenith.

There is really no reason given the current amount of legitimate teachers who’ve actually fought not to seek out instruction from those who’ve actually used their teachings in gunfights whether at home or overseas. Shooting is different, that’s an athletic skill. But learning fighting is best done by finding a teacher whose been in a lot of fights. And most importantly, a teacher who understands why they prevailed, what they did wrong, and studied their craft to perfect it.

This applies no less when evaluating information received through the internet. Where did the person learn what their showing? Did they do it for real against a determined adversary willing to kill them? Does it look similar to what you see from those at the top of the craft, SMU and SOF veterans? Because if it doesn’t and it hasn’t been tested where it counts, it should be evaluated very skeptically and critically before implementing any of it into your personal or professional doctrine. Caveat Emptor, buyer beware.