The problem is when good, reputable gun training facilities include these drills that don't help people much. Some are beyond the scope of reality. Some put a certain Dogma ahead of practical reality. And some of these drill simply look cool, but have no real benefit.
So why do good, reputable gun training facilities include drills such as this? Legitimate question. Very often it comes from one of two mentalities. The first is that a drill was either seen or created by somebody with combat experience, and he sees a certain value in the drill, from a very specific point of view. The second mentality is that this drill is very obscure, and the instructor is good at it, and it gives him a sense of superiority over others.
Just because somebody was in the Infantry, or otherwise a combat vet, does not mean that they will automatically make a good gun instructor. In fact, very few good infantryman will wind up making good instructors. The skill sets are totally different.
Also, you will see the occasional vet who really only saw one firefight. The worst student in the world is the one who has been in one gun fight. Similarly, the worst teacher in the world is the one who has been in one gun fight. Human Nature would predicate this individual to think that all fights will be like the one they experienced.
Even for the Vets who saw multiple firefights, this does not mean they have a really good idea of what is really needed. Most people are terrible at seeing trends. Additionally, poor technique could have been used in all of those, and yet the military came out on top, due to other reasons. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Additionally, just because something works for the military does not mean it will work for civilians. Military operations have rules, support, and other factors the civilians will not have. And the reverse is true as well, civilian operations will have rules, factors, and situations that are not true of the military.
The instructor, school, or organization who builds their training around obscure technique or techniques, frequently does so because they do not understand the circumstantial nature of combat. Often, they have been proven wrong in other things, so in order to keep the air of "instructor invincibility," they resort to obscure techniques.
Additionally, in this category, one might include drills using techniques beyond their scope. For example, I once attended a class where the topic was peeking out from behind cover on either the left or the right. Of course, when you went to the offside, you used the technique of switching shoulders. However, at this class, targets were engaged at much longer distances than one would normally shoot from when using this technique. The students were not allowed to brace on the cover, being told that somebody might be on the other side ready to grab the gun. Of course, logic dictates, that if there was an enemy just on the other side of the cover, then the person at distance would not be firing in the direction of his buddy.
Also in this category one would include techniques that are not commonly seen on the battlefield, that have been long since discarded. An example of this might be the use of the loop sling by certain organizations. Certainly, no one argues that the correct use of a loop sling will enhance accuracy at long range - but most snipers prefer to use bipods or build a stable platform in some other manner.
At the root of the Obscure technique is the instructor or instructors who are afraid of missing, or being proven wrong. Everybody misses a shot from time to time, and nobody is 100% perfect. And never have I attended a class, nor taught a class where somebody expected the instructor to hit every shot and be perfect.
Let logic be your guide. This is a concept I have borrowed from the venerable Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch. It is the five letter word at the top of all of my handouts.