View Full Version : Thoughts on training
Failure2Stop
04-08-09, 01:30
After a discussion with a friend on this topic I thought I might throw some things out for discussion to the forum.
There are distinctly different approaches to training. Some of these differences are personality driven, which can account for different approaches to identical problems, but the major differences are a result of the intended application of the techniques as intended by the instructor.
As I see it there are four major categories of firearms training.
1- Fundamental. The first steps. I also consider bulls-eye shooting/competitions to be fundamental in nature.
2- Competition. Training designed to elevate the shooter's classification and competitiveness in games such as IDPA, USPSA, and 3-gun type comps.
3- Personal defense. Applicable to the CCW/armed individual.
4- Combat. Most applicable to heavily armed individuals that will be working in teams.
While all three share similar aspects, especially in the pure marksmanship category, there are parts where they diverge, and judicious selection of the training type/instructor will most benefit the shooter by introducing and/or honing the finer points of the needed skill-set. Ex- a soon to deploy reservist will probably benefit more from training with the likes of Magpul Dynamics than from Todd Jarrett. This is not to say that Todd won't make you a better shooter, just that learning combat skills from those that have performed well in actual combat will probably have better insight to the skills needed to prevail in that domain with applicable gear. To reverse the coin, if one wants to become a GM USPSA shooter it would be better to seek out the tutelage of Todd Jarrett or other active GM trainer.
Major differences lie between all three types of training beyond fundamental training. One major concept that must be embraced and honed (in my opinion) is combat mindset. Appropriate mindset really boils down to the will and ability to fight until you win. While high-level competition shooters have a competition oriented mindset required to win competitions, most competition-only shooters are ill-equipped to enhance the mindset of their students for gunfights.
Competition oriented training, in my experience, tends to focus on specific techniques to win matches. Defensive training tends to focus on individual survival. Combat training should focus on domination of the ground.
While I have experience and training in defensive concepts and competition, my focus is in offensive small-unit combat, so that is the perspective that drives my training choices. As such I do not consider myself qualified to dwell on defensive or competition training concepts beyond my broad-stroke distinctions.
As far as "combat" training is concerned appropriate training in marksmanship, manipulations, and mindset should be embraced by the instructor and student. I consider them to be of equal importance. A superior shooter that can't solve an inline double-feed is ineffective. A hard-charging individual that can perform a long-gun reload in 3 seconds is inefficient if he lacks the marksmanship skill to place bullets into the threat with the degree of precision/accuracy needed to stop the threat.
Some differences as I see them-
Threat engagement. In fundamental and competative marksmanship the shooter is generally delivering a pre-designated number of shots to the target. When it comes to fighting one cannot assume that any number of pre-designated shots will actually work. The shooter must be trained to rapidly deliver shots and instinctively switch to alternate shot placement should those initial shots fail to achieve the desired result. The shooter must constantly be expecting another threat to be present or imminent.
Orientation/Pivots and turns. Most pivoting techniques, especially 90 degree pivots, are often dwelled upon, much to my amusement. As I see it the only evaluation points are the ability of the shooter to quickly acquire a firing platform without cranking a round into the ground, orbit, or another shooter. While I consider muzzle awareness and discipline to be a hall-mark of a professional warrior, how much live-fire is really necessary to accomplish this? It generally doesn't take long for me to see who is incaipable of keeping their gun pointed in a safe direction at all times, including changing direction.
I do however place a bit of importance in 180 degree turns with a long-gun. The reason is that I teach 180s a bit differently than most others do. My 180s are not intended to engage a threat that is shooting at your back- there are much better ways to deal with that than to be standing upright and performing an aikido box-step. Rather, I focus on the skill to negotiate a door-way/button-hook, which is a directly applicable critical skill. It is not the fastest way to turn around, but it is the combat skill needed combined with a marksmanship/speed standard.
Gear. Most things will be the same or similar whether fully jocked-up or wearing a polo shirt and oakleys. There are some things that will dramatically change though- magazine access, stock placement, eye-relief, and other subtle changes that can only be appreciated once the gear is on. Some fundamental and competition skills will not cross-over when your chest is 2" thicker, and your arms are 2" shorter due to your armor and you can no longer get to your belt-system. Likewise, there are techniques that work with armor that don't work as well as other techniques when running slick.
No/Low Light. Combat happens whenever it happens. Competitions and fundamental marksmanship primarily occur in daylight or in lighted conditions. This makes a distinct change in what needs to be on your gun and how you interface with the items. Optics that do great in the day suddenly become unusable or sub-optimal in transient lighting conditions.
Targets. In combat shooting it is important to provide the shooter with a realistic threat to shoot. I could go on for several pages just about targetry, but I will cut it down to simple concepts for brevity's sake. Having a target that looks like an actual bad-guy serves more than just psychologically preparing the student to shoot at another human, it also prepares the shooter to see what the aiming device looks like in actual use. A sighting system that looks great on a buff-colored target in daylight may not do so well when using a white-light during darkness on a 10 meter target clothed in a dark shirt. Further, during most training the targets are fully frontally presented as if standing up- most bad guys are not so dumb. Targets at odd angles, partially exposed, with varying amounts of exposure are far more common. Training beyond a basic level should exposure the shooter to these factors while requiring the shooter to maintain a standard of accuracy.
Positions. There are relatively few times when the traditional standing, kneeling, sitting and prone positions will be the solution to a combat problem. Shooting from cover, support, and unconventional positions should be thoroughly practiced and mastered. Understanding how to best use cover in different situations pays dividends when bullets are smashing into your little piece of hell. Bilateral use of cover and its training under pressure can carry over to real-life use, but only if trained and practiced with the same regularity and intensity of "normal" use. While most shooters will be better served by focusing on "normal" strong/support hand use, dedicated training to maximize cover will better protect the shooter in a combat scenario without massive degredation of effectiveness. This also plays into effect for wounded shooter use, a situation that rarely plagues bulls-eye shooters.
Manipulations and transitions. While it is all well and good to teach shooters to immediately transition to a side-arm if inside 25 yards when your primary stops working, it can be a bad habit if the shooter is not actually going to be armed with a secondary in real-life. In a similar vein, learning how to reload a pistol without coming close to breaking the 180 may be beneficial to USPSA shooters, but won't be of much benefit to someone primarily concerned with retention. There are most certainly benefits to reloading quickly, but there is just as much benefit to minimizing exposure and profile while reloading quickly. There are many examples of minor differences in not only name and technique but also of intent and priority.
There are also things mistakenly attritibuted to "combat" techniques that really bring no benefit.
Racking the slide during a reload. One of the things beaten into most of us under the threat that depressing the slide-release/stop would cause erectile dysfunction. Hitting the slide release is faster and causes no more stoppages than racking the slide. The argument that not all pistols have a slide release is a bit weak. If the weapon you are armed with has one, use it. Not all pistols have a set of sights, a triggerguard-area mag release, safety, or even a slide, yet there are few that recommend against using these features when available. Further, there are several weapons that have the controls located in different places. If you happen to be forced to a battle-field pickup I recommend a TRB before you need to shoot anyway. Once the smoke settles, feel free to determine what controls the gun has and where they are if you are unfamiliar with the new roscoe.
The Weaver Stance. There is a ridiculous amount of data that indicates that the weaver breaks-down under stress. Sure, there are guys that are very good with the weaver on a one-way range and some on the two-way as well, but generally speaking the iso will be more natural and effective under stress with equal training.
Just a few of my thoughts when it comes to determining what type of training is applicable to the user and some specific examples of differences. I do not pretend to hold the one true path to tactical enlightenment, just experience in the field and in training people to suceed in bad places.
Jay Cunningham
04-08-09, 04:21
This is well-written and provides a lot to think about. I will be ruminating over this - thank you for the meat-and-potatoes!
John_Wayne777
04-08-09, 09:38
Excellent post, F2S. The incorporation of realistic looking targets into training is something I think the training industry could stand to incorporate more as a whole. This is excellent advice, especially for those just getting into training...so it's now stickied.
EDIT -- "One of the things beaten into most of us under the threat that depressing the slide-release/stop would cause erectile dysfunction." Excellent line, by the way....
Excellent.
Just this morning I was talking to another friend who's been detailed to rework his agency's firearms training program. He's planning to go to a bunch of schools. Almost all of them are competition-oriented because this particular guy has become a serious IPSC competitor.
On the one hand, there are practical benefits to be gleaned. After all, running the gun in the most efficient way is a good skill to have. Learning how to make accurate hits in timeframes most LE/mil folks think of as miraculous is a good skill to have.
But, as KevinB pointed out just a couple weeks back, the important thing is to filter what's being taught against your personal practical needs. For example, running uprange while pointing a pistol or rifle over your shoulder "so I don't break the 180" is not very worldly. Exposure to & training outside of the simple shoot/compete sphere is necessary to make those assessments.
As F2S pointed out, the same can be true in the other direction. Plenty of people who'll never be in a team combat environment and do not walk around with plate carriers & drop leg holsters nonetheless spend a lot of time, money, and effort training to use that stuff in classes and when they practice. When I attended David Pennington's excellent Concealed Carry class last year, I was absolutely amazed at how many of these people -- almost all of them private citizens -- had spent years training with their Mogadishu Response Gear and had never taken a single class and in some cases never even practiced with the holster they use every day for CCW.
Failure2Stop
04-09-09, 03:02
Hey Charles, some good points.
I will just take a little time to make some clarifications in response to your post. My responses are not necessarily aimed at you, but rather expanding my comments to clarify my perspective in light of the comments.
Again- I agree and disagree. Shooting is the number one baseline skill. It's the first thing that separates combatants from non-combatants. (Shoot, move, communicate. In that order. All our running, jumping, rucking, "warrior" mindset, aggression, tactics, are for naught if we miss. Again.. everything else means nothing if we hit the wrong person or our teammate dies because we weren't fast/accurate enough.
To be clear here I do not believe in lowering accuracy standards simply because the word "combat" is used. The concept I push is "Be as accurate as you need to, as fast as you can," and design programs to support that ability.
I understand what you're saying, however I personally do not believe teaching "combat mindset" is the appropriate task for a skills based class. Yes, it can be thrown in there, but in my mind you either have it or you don't, and no two day shooting class is going to change that.
I am not saying that the instructor should be giving a two hour death by powerpoint on the chemical cocktail. My point is that the instructor should devote time and instruction on skills related to the will to continue to fight, such as single hand/wounded shooter manipulations and marksmanship. How many people know how to clear a type 3 rifle stoppage with only the support side? How about drawing the pistol with the support hand? Fighting off a gun grab or attempted disarm? Mindset is not simply having the will, possessing the skills to enforce will is required. Something as simple as introducing and practicing the techniques can go a long way in building someone's mindset.
Which is the absolute failing of "defensive" training. Survival??? Screw that! Slaves survive. Rape victims survive. I want to win.
I agree in principle, but the course of action for an individual in need of lethal force for personal protection is rarely to just stand ground and fight. Threat avoidance and rapid movement to a safe location should be the first consideration if those choices are possible. Once again, this is in direct conflict with "combat" training in which the students are being prepared to go out looking for gunfights to win.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here. If it reads the way I see it, then I believe pivots/turns to be very important. Threats can and will pop up from any direction and the shooter has to be able to quickly move into a position to hit them.
The act of identifying and orienting on a threat is most definately important. However, "combat" training (especially at the basic level) tends to be patterned more on competitive or fundamental training setups. Having fully exposed targets in the open but offest 90 degrees from the shooter has very little in common with unexpected threats and the actions needed to successfully eliminate the threats in a timely manner. If the line simply faces in a designated direction and the instructor bellows the drill to be performed followed by a firing command, the shooter is simply going through a coreographed routine with no need to identify or decide on a course of action. Improperly training target ID gains little for the actual use of the skill, and can increase the probablity of putting bullets into something that should not have been shot. Additionally, the technique for turning in most "combat" rifle courses focuses on footwork when it should be oriented on the upper body and presentation after a threat has been positively identified. People have the ability to fluidly change direction and foot position well before they ever come onto a range, and after training is complete they will not, and have no need to, use the "pivoting technique" in normal life that is deemed imperative to gunfighting by many trainers. As I see it, it is a fallacy to think that only firearms instructors know the only way to change body orientation without falling over.
Agree, but this isn't the purpose of competition. It also depends on what a "basic level" is to you. Also, the target we should be hitting doesn't really change no matter what angle the body is, imnsho.
Not sure about what you mean by the competition comment.
My point is not about angles of attack into the threat (but which is a point worth discussing), but rather the available portion of the threat in which to introduce little bits of supersonic metal. When a threat is using cover and the only visible portion of the threat is half of the head and one shoulder, what training does the shooter have to fall back on? By providing the student with realistic threats (not just clothed targets on humanoid figures) in realistic positions, the shooter does not have such a widely difference in skill application between training and gunfighting. Sometimes you just gotta shoot what you have available, waiting on a "better" shot can be fatal. Training must support actual use. Sometimes the answer is to shoot through the cover, sometimes it is to aim for center of available target, sometimes the answer is to roll a frag and suppress.
This would come down to TTP and SOP's wouldn't it?
These were just examples of the differences in the approach to manipulations. There are lots of ways to perform any manipulation, and are dependant on a whole raft of considerations.
My philosophy on training is pretty simple- I go outside my little world to find out what the best people at a particular skill do, and how they do it, I.E...
Learn to run from the best runners.
Lean to fight from the best fighters.
Learn to shoot from the best shooters.
Learn to drive from the best drivers.
Learn mindset from the guys with the strongest will to win.
Learn tactics from the guys with the most experience in that individual situation.
Etc.
Then I incorporate it into the training program.
I have a bit of a different perspective. I don't really need to learn from the "best" performers. I want to learn from the guy that trained the best performers. Training someone to achieve a level of proficiency is different than simply performing to that level of proficiency.
Once you have comparable skill to an individual you might be able to glean some valuable insight to their individual technique, but that little bit of minutia might not have anything to do with your technique. A good trainer has the experience of working with many people in advancing their individual technique from a basic framework, and should be able to diagnose, correct, and improve performance based off of his experience in doing so with numerous varying individual unique factors. Individuals only know how they do it, unless they are also accomplished instructors.
the target we should be hitting doesn't really change no matter what angle the body is, imnsho.
"Target" or "aiming point"? I would argue that the "target" (meaning what you really want the bullet to hit) doesn't change based on angle, but the aiming point most certainly does.
On my website I have an AAR of an Awerbuck cabine class I took, and in that class Louis talked a lot about how the aiming point changes as the angle of the body changes, both horizontally and vertically. For example, if you encounter a threat on a stairway and are shooting up or down, the "target" is still the heart, but the "aiming point" is much different.
One of the problems with competition in this regard is that targets are rarely presented at an angle and if they are the target and aiming point still remain the same as they are when directly facing the shooter. the best place to shoot a threat that is presenting his head at a 45* angle to you is NOT the A-zone of an IPSC target.
John_Wayne777
04-09-09, 08:03
I understand what you're saying, however I personally do not believe teaching "combat mindset" is the appropriate task for a skills based class. Yes, it can be thrown in there, but in my mind you either have it or you don't, and no two day shooting class is going to change that.
In the vein of continuing the good discussion we have going here, I'll toss my hat into the ring on a couple of items...
I would agree that there's no way to, as Ken Hackathorn puts it, "Turn a grass-eater into a meat-eater." The will to fight has to be generated within the individual...but I would argue there is more to it than that. The raw material may be there, but the seeker of knowledge needs the advice and training of someone who knows what they are doing to refine their thinking and to help them make sound decisions before the fight starts, while the fight is in progress, and after the fight is over. This sort of apprenticeship happens in military units as the experienced guys share what they've learned with their less experienced teammates, partially out of fraternal concern for their bretheren and partly because they know that on the next mission Junior is going to be on their six so he needs to be ready to hang to avoid getting himself or his teammates killed.
...but where does the civilian get that kind of information? The police officer? I would argue that it's going to have to come from combat experienced trainers. The guys who have done it at a high level and who have the skill and ability to discern and then focus on the most critical aspects of getting the job done when your life is on the line. I can name several guys in the training business who, in my estimation, do an excellent job of teaching mindset. Strangely enough, many of them have accounts here. ;)
I would argue that threads like this one are also an excellent resource for helping people develop the right mindset. I would certainly agree that no instructor, no matter how good, can turn you into a warrior in a 2 day class. (Unfortunately there are some out there who claim to do just that....:rolleyes:) Still, a good instructor can at least get you started on the path to enlightenment.
Now it's certainly true that the ordinary joe or police officer (or frankly Soldier/Sailor/Airman/Marine/Coastie/Whatever) who seeks out training that is beyond the minimum requirements they have to live with do not really qualify as "average".,and that a certain mindset must already be present to motivate them to make such a decision. As I learned on another site "the normal schlep has no time/money for a training course anyhow!" While that's a good first step, they could still use some work.
Unfortunately the enemy is the same regardless of your vocation. They don’t get any smaller, weaker, less determined, or less likely to kill you because you're an accountant or mechanic instead of a Green Beret or NAVY SEAL. The threat is the same, the cost is the same (your life, your partners life, or the lives of innocents) so your (shooting) training and standards should be the same.
I couldn't agree more. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone justify their choice to carry an NAA .32 auto as their primary carry gun because "Well, I'm not a SEAL!" I could probably retire. The knowledge that bleeding out in front of the ATM is in the same realm of suck as bleeding out on a hill in Afganistan doesn't seem to have set in with many people.
This is, I would argue, another mindset issue. ;)
I've said this before, but I'll say it here too:
Show me a man's carry equipment and how he trains, and I'll be able to tell you a LOT about his mindset.
F2S, thank you for the clarification on those points. I cannot disagree with any of them.
Your last point on the "learn from the best" is exactly what I was trying to get at. As organizations the military and police, and as individuals, civilians have typically not done this. As an example the Lt. Infantry rucks (or used to) everywhere they went. Matter of fact the whole Army kind of had that thought process. Yet never once did the idea that the solution to the problem of messed up feet and backs might be best solved outside the Army.
If you're going to create new issued boots, why not see what the hardcore backpackers and mountaineers wear? Likewise for the packs, so you don't end up with MOLLE 2, or 3, or 4, or whatever it is now.
Why do people spend money on mediocre training, from mediocre trainers, that have a mediocre background, and a mediocre skill-set, when they could spend the money on outstanding training, from outstanding trainers, that have an outstanding background, and an outstanding skill-set? Usually excellent training doesn't cost much more then mediocre training.......
How many people know how to clear a type 3 rifle stoppage with only the support side? How about drawing the pistol with the support hand? Fighting off a gun grab or attempted disarm?
This raises another issue that I believe is being thought about a lot in this thread but hasn't been addressed directly: You can't learn it all in two days, or even a week.
A USMC friend of mine is putting together something about this very topic, using the concept of effective training hours to separate the basic grunt from the "ready for war" from the "special mission capable." If I'm remembering right, he considers the minimum for the last group to be three hundred and fifty hours of formal firearms/tactics training. That's two months of dedicated training. And even those guys aren't masters of any particular skill. They're just well versed with most of what they might need.
I've been to weekend classes that try to put marksmanship, speed, one-handed manipulations, weapons retention, room clearing, threat ID, mindset, etc. all into the package. Students walk away with a tiny taste of everything and no real skill. They haven't even learned it well enough to go home and practice.
Put another way: you're not going to master strong hand only shooting by starting with partial bladed moving targets in the rain while someone is trying to punch you in the face. Just because something is harder or more realistic doesn't always mean it's the best way to build a skill.
Look at boxers. Do the top guys just spar full time? No. They practice their individual techniques until they've become reflexive. They practice combinations. They practice footwork. And they spar.
I agree in principle, but the course of action for an individual in need of lethal force for personal protection is rarely to just stand ground and fight.
Agree completely. A lot of folks get their panties in a bunch when you suggest that small unit battlefield tactics might not be the proper way to deal with a mugging.
One of the problems with competition in this regard is that targets are rarely presented at an angle and if they are the target and aiming point still remain the same as they are when directly facing the shooter. the best place to shoot a threat that is presenting his head at a 45* angle to you is NOT the A-zone of an IPSC target.
You can't use a 2D target with 2D scoring zone to judge 3D shooting. If you tell people the scoring zone is in the center of a flat piece of paper or cardboard, don't be surprised if they try to hit it.
As a general rule, shooting at the lateral center of a threat at approximately vital-organ height is the answer to most questions. Yes, the staircase thing provides a technical challenge but I'd humbly suggest that most people being shot at by a partially concealed person atop or below on a staircase will have more pressing matters going through their minds than target trigonometry. Visualize where the internal target is and aim for that. It's like throwing a punch ... you don't punch the surface, you punch into someone.
John_Wayne777
04-09-09, 12:48
Why do people spend money on mediocre training, from mediocre trainers, that have a mediocre background, and a mediocre skill-set, when they could spend the money on outstanding training, from outstanding trainers, that have an outstanding background, and an outstanding skill-set? Usually excellent training doesn't cost much more then mediocre training.......
An excellent question....
My guess? Because they don't know how to spot excellent training from mediocre training.
Worse still, some become so personally invested in what they've sunk money into that they become highly insulted at the mere mention that there might be a better way. Generally this is an affliction that does not plague the guys who do combat for a living because their regular exposure to the crucible of combat makes them intensely interested in what really works. For those who don't kill people for a living (military, LE, or ordinary joe) it can become a real cabal if you point out issues in idea X or training outfit Y.
Failure2Stop
04-09-09, 12:58
This raises another issue that I believe is being thought about a lot in this thread but hasn't been addressed directly: You can't learn it all in two days, or even a week.
Great point.
I also think that there are two categories of training- sustainment/practice, and instructive. There is, of course, overlap between the two, but there are major differences in time utilization and individual instruction. With instructive type training the student is learning from a teacher and practicing those skills under the watchful eye of a coach, being critiqued and coached at every stage. Since each new skill will require instruction and imitation time allotment, each new step is a time suck. With sustainment/practice the shooters already know the basic skills, and are either doing repetitioin work to increase efficiency or applying the skill-set in a stress environment.
Should I hear someone claim to be able to simply teach every skill related to gunfighting in anything less than a month I would laugh myself into unconsciousness. I equate time-lines to pretty much any other sport, but with a major difference- in sporting events you can choose the level of adversity, but every gunfight is climbing Everest.
It's like throwing a punch ... you don't punch the surface, you punch into someone.
Todd, I'd appreciate it if you would keep your personal life to yourself from now on.
Todd, I'd appreciate it if you would keep your personal life to yourself from now on.
Awwww ... that's not what you said after dinner the other night. ;)
Just hitting the highlights here: Comments directed at F2S
Targetry comment hit home. Very good point as I can recall a noticeable change in type of stress when shooting at targets you described. I'd like to explore this more. Thanks for the reminder.
Agree on summation of weaver.
Moving and shooting: The guys I shoot with put timers on our movement. This allows for a push outside our comfort zone and thus, expose weakness in our technique. Being 30ft from cover and having less than 2 seconds to get to it won't allow for the slow groucho walk. Just something we do that I feel helps. Some times we bite the dirt. We continue to engage as we scramble to cover.
Low/No light. I'm guilty of not doing enough of this type of training. Really unfortunate as I work night shift. The last time we did this training with "human" targets, just about everyone shot the guy pointing a TV remote at them. Thanks again for the reminder to play in the dark more. Already put some dates down.
Accuracy comments. With high speed drills dominating most of my training I started to notice a slack in my accuracy. There is something to be said for having the skill to punch a tight group on a static line. At least SOME of that transfers over to dynamic situations. Trigger control if nothing else. If you have a good base you have at least a chance of some of it being there when you need it. I went back to the basics for a few days to get my self dialed in. Also, I won't leave the range without shooting from at least the 50yd mark thanks in part to a thread we had on here a while ago discussing a scenario.
Racking the slide v. slide release. I'm left handed. Weapon design generally restricts me to racking the slide.
Something I've realized traveling in my lane. The ambush "oh shit" moments are the ones when your training weakness come to the top. Todd and I have had some long discussions about this. When I've gotten that "feeling" and can anticipate something going bad, things to go more smoothly obviously. The ones were it went from 0-100 without stopping at 50......... You find out how good you are at the basics: getting out of your holster, getting IN your holster, getting on target, find the sights, finding the laser, getting proper cheek weld first time, NOT falling over from being startled, getting to cover, advance, backing to cover, USING JUDGMENT UNDER STRESS etc. etc. etc.
I've experienced a large growth in my warrior/combat mindset thanks to my fitness routine. That might seem strange but it is what has helped me.
Great post F2S.
Lastly to Todd-
Plenty of people who'll never be in a team combat environment and do not walk around with plate carriers & drop leg holsters nonetheless spend a lot of time, money, and effort training to use that stuff in classes and when they practice. When I attended David Pennington's excellent Concealed Carry class last year, I was absolutely amazed at how many of these people -- almost all of them private citizens -- had spent years training with their Mogadishu Response Gear and had never taken a single class and in some cases never even practiced with the holster they use every day for CCW.
That's funny, sad, and very true.
Awwww ... that's not what you said after dinner the other night. ;)
How do you keeping finding yourself in these situations?
oregonshooter
04-25-09, 01:05
I've been to weekend classes that try to put marksmanship, speed, one-handed manipulations, weapons retention, room clearing, threat ID, mindset, etc. all into the package. Students walk away with a tiny taste of everything and no real skill. They haven't even learned it well enough to go home and practice.
Never been to or seen one of those advertised, but have seen a lot of people take the same basic class 2,3 times and still suck at the basics.
Point is, a person that questions "what is the best way to do this?" and then uses some form or measurement (usually a timer and/or outside observation) will become a lot better shooter/competitor/survivor than one who looks to the "expert" to show them how without questioning the why?
The only thing I didn't see mentioned yet is those "training scars" that develop by trying to use one category to train for another. I.E. shooting 2 and moving on in IPSC is not a good habit for a street shooting. Likewise, suppressive fire is great for military, but not too hot in the active mall shooter scenario.
I.E. shooting 2 and moving on in IPSC is not a good habit for a street shooting.
IPSC is used as a test. Not for training....
oregonshooter
05-04-09, 16:36
Test or not, if you train a bad habit the chances of defaulting to it are greatly increased.
If it is the most recent training that you have repetitively done, you will likely default to it under stress or "auto" mode.
Great information here :cool:
Racking the slide during a reload. One of the things beaten into most of us under the threat that depressing the slide-release/stop would cause erectile dysfunction. Hitting the slide release is faster and causes no more stoppages than racking the slide. The argument that not all pistols have a slide release is a bit weak. If the weapon you are armed with has one, use it. Not all pistols have a set of sights, a triggerguard-area mag release, safety, or even a slide, yet there are few that recommend against using these features when available. Further, there are several weapons that have the controls located in different places. If you happen to be forced to a battle-field pickup I recommend a TRB before you need to shoot anyway. Once the smoke settles, feel free to determine what controls the gun has and where they are if you are unfamiliar with the new roscoe.
Great read. One question I have about the quoted text is that I was always taught that racking the slide vs. manipulating the slide-release. Isn't this taught because of the loss/reduction in fine motor skills? I've been taught that racking the slide is more of a gross motor skill and those are not as affected by the adrenaline dump a person gets when the excrement hits the occilator. Is this old thinking or is this just further down (earlier on) the line when it comes to training?
Test or not, if you train a bad habit the chances of defaulting to it are greatly increased.
If it is the most recent training that you have repetitively done, you will likely default to it under stress or "auto" mode.
Do you sprint across the street in Bahgdad wearing PT shorts and tinn'ies at the same speed you run the 2-mile PT test?
Great read. One question I have about the quoted text is that I was always taught that racking the slide vs. manipulating the slide-release. Isn't this taught because of the loss/reduction in fine motor skills? I've been taught that racking the slide is more of a gross motor skill and those are not as affected by the adrenaline dump a person gets when the excrement hits the occilator. Is this old thinking or is this just further down (earlier on) the line when it comes to training?
Motor skills, whether fine or gross, actually have a scientific meaning and anything that uses the fingers is a fine motor skill. Regardless, rotating the hood on a 6004, aligning the sights, pressing the trigger, hitting the mag release button, indexing a mag and inserting the mag are all fine motor skills.
Stating that releasing the slide with an overhand grasp is a "gross motor skill" and easier to do under stress is one of the most retarded things that is consistently repeated by "trainers" that have neither the skill or knowledge to know the difference.
Well, so much for getting my money's worth.:D It may very well be a misnomer to call it a "gross motor skill" but I guess it taught me one thing. Once you practice something a certain way a bazillion times, you still get faster at it. It feels odd to trip the slide release now because I've just practiced overhanding it so many times. I guess it works either way, it'll put any pistol I can think of back into action as long as it has a loaded magazine. I learn something new everyday.
Zhur
Stating that releasing the slide with an overhand grasp is a "gross motor skill" and easier to do under stress is one of the most retarded things that is consistently repeated by "trainers" that have neither the skill or knowledge to know the difference.
QFT. Thank you.
oregonshooter
05-04-09, 17:58
Do you sprint across the street in Bahgdad wearing PT shorts and tinn'ies at the same speed you run the 2-mile PT test?
There are many examples of training scars killing people. Shooting drills from the "surrender" position, saving empty brass during a reload, etc. etc. I find it hard to believe with all the data available that this is still so hard for some to grasp.
When I started shooting IPSC I did thousands of reps on the reload with a slide release on my 1911. when I went to a glock and had people tell me to use the overhand, I did hundreds of those reps. instead. When I would shoot under the pressure of just a timer, I defaulted to the slide release in "auto" mode even though I had not trained that way for months.
If you shoot 2 and move on for months/years on end, what makes you think that you will shoot to the ground when you don't train that way?
I have a few Reed Reactive targets I made that I put in our local IDPA matches sometimes and more than 80% of the shooters will shoot 2 and evaluate because that is how they practice.
When was the last time you shot reactive targets only? Is it something you do most of the time or every now and then without pressure?
Point is.... you will default to your training, don't train in ways you don't want to default to.
Failure2Stop
05-04-09, 18:05
Stating that releasing the slide with an overhand grasp is a "gross motor skill" and easier to do under stress is one of the most retarded things that is consistently repeated by "trainers" that have neither the skill or knowledge to know the difference.
Hey, I was one of those "retards" :D.
Seriously though, it was one of those things that seemed to make sense when you were boing told it for the first time. Only later when the actual definitions of "gross" and "fine" motor skills were looked at did the argument fall apart. The problem I think, is that people get into minutia about "grosser" motor skills, which really isn't an aspect that bears much weight.
As said before, pretty much everything you do with a firearm that makes it more effective than a club is a fine motor skill. At some point we as the firearms training community became focused on minutia that we really didn't understand. There is no problem with using fine motor skills in high-stress- the issue is to train the motor skill in similar conditions to actual use to make the high-stress environment the common operating environment. Think about fighter pilots in WW2- a whole lot of fine motor skills in about as stressful an environment as possible with the direst of consequences for f**king up. Those that survived a few missions were much more likely to make it through their tour- call it training through performance. It wasn't the best new guys that always made it through their tours, but rather those that survived through their first few through whatever chance permitted or enabled it.
Fast forward to the Korean Conflict in which the US pilots flying inferior aircraft to the MiGs had a much higher victory rate than their counterparts. This was due primarily to the training of the US pilots in which they became accustomed to the environment prior to enemy engagement.
We can do the same thing today with firearms and simunition (and to a lesser extent air(*gag*)soft). People that train to shoot little black bulls-eyes react slower and with much lessened accuracy than those trained to rapidly engage realistic human targets when faced with a living, moving, shooting adversary. Even then, after a few repetitions shooters become more proficient with engaging human adversaries to a higher degree of precision with lessened time to observe, orient, decide, and act on a stimulus. This is not limited to people that have not experienced combat. I do not know any gunfighter that would rather spend time shooting little groups than working on force on force tactical training with sim. Shooters want little groups, fighters want acceptable hits on badguys as quickly as possible, and whatever hones that skill is a good thing.
The first time you have that paint coming at you you lose much of what you spent time on the range trying to perfect, from sight picture to trigger control. With a short amount of time those simple, effective skills work their way back up to use.
Anyway, back to the slide stop thing- I find it faster, easier, and more consistent to depress the bolt release on an M4 with the thumb of my left hand than to slap the bolt release. There are a bunch of things about this, but I will move on for the sake of the discussion. With most pistols, it is a very similar motion, one that is generally more efficient, and I have done it many times in force on force without consciously thinking about it. I would have to say that that alone is justification for my use to use the slide release. (I have also done an "IPSC reload" in force on force, much to my benefit, but that is another discussion).
Talking about training scars, and pairs specifically, I am inclined to agree that the mantra "2 to the chest" is probably not doing us much good other than getting people to understand that you can't count on 1 doing the job. I am leaning toward the concept of time on target available to shoot, over a default number of shots. I firther think it comes down to precision needs, not necessarily distance. Ex- many people will tell you that X yards away from target you should be firing X type of pair. While this may be fine for fully frontal IDPA targets, you very well may be needing bullets into a very small area, such as working back through an enemy loop-hole.
So my opinion has more to do with the shooter's ability to maintain a certain balance between time, speed, and precision in relation to the threat. Multiple targets throw a bit of a monkey wrench into the concept, but I also think that anything more than 2 threats is unrealistic to expect a single shooter to effectively engage prior to ventilation.
And I'm one of the window lickers who listened to those retards :p
When I started shooting Glocks (around the same time I starting casually shooting some USPSA) I started doing the slide-rack thing. Cause it's not a slide release, right? And it's small and flat and a fine motor skill and I wanted to be tactical, not about speed (Let that statement sit in your brain a minute....huuuh?). Oh and as a newlywed I was also worried about that ED thing F2S mentioned. :o
Anyways, fast forward a couple-a-three years (with a break from any competitions) and last year I was shooting a match, went to reload, and just dropped the slide with the lever like I'd been doing it all along. It actually caught me off guard...but it worked great! It was fast and natural, almost like it was meant to work that way :eek: The fact that I did it naturally even though I was trying not to, told me "hey, numbnuts, why don't you just roll with this and stop overthinking?" So now I've been trying it that way...
Gents (and by "Gents," I really mean two of you...;)) -
It's already been noted in several places in this thread that competition (IPSC, IDPA) has a place in the overall portfolio of training methods, and that there are also a number of other skills crucial to prevailing in a fight that are better imparted using some mechanism other than competition. I think it's safe to say the NO ONE who has contributed to this thread has argued that all techniques/actions used in competition are appropriate in a fight. Since I think everyone agrees on this point, let's not derail F2S's outstanding thread by continuing the argument that seems to have sprung up within the last few hours.
Thanks,
YRAC
There are many examples of training scars killing people. Shooting drills from the "surrender" position, saving empty brass during a reload, etc. etc.
Can you please cite an example in which training to start from a surrender position resulted in someone's death?
When I would shoot under the pressure of just a timer, I defaulted to the slide release in "auto" mode even though I had not trained that way for months.
Add me to the list of people who've experienced something similar. The reality is that it works so much better (for most people with most guns) that it happens more "naturally' under stress.
If you shoot 2 and move on for months/years on end, what makes you think that you will shoot to the ground when you don't train that way?
You've changed terms. "Shooting to the ground" is a different thing altogether than simply "not shooting only 2." Before we get further into a debate about this, let's make sure we're discussing the same point.
I have a few Reed Reactive targets I made that I put in our local IDPA matches sometimes and more than 80% of the shooters will shoot 2 and evaluate because that is how they practice.
Right. So when you put them into the same environment doing the same thing (shooting at target in IDPA), they do the same thing they always do. You can't extrapolate that into what someone will do when faced with a true threat.
In my experience -- and if someone else has actual experience to the contrary I'm happy to hear it -- when someone is faced with a threat in a defensive situation, he'll deal with that threat until it's no longer the greatest threat. So either the threat is neutralized or something even worse grabs the shooter's attention. (this is pretty basic OODA, by the way)
Obviously, this doesn't necessarily apply in a planned offensive action (e.g., an ambush) because you've made a conscious decision on who to shoot how many times, etc., if appropriate. But then that isn't subject to some kind of built-in programming as you suggest, either.
When was the last time you shot reactive targets only? Is it something you do most of the time or every now and then without pressure?
Much as F2S mentioned in his post, except for slow marksmanship practice almost all of my shooting is done on targets which present for a certain period of time. Often, my drill is to shoot until the target goes away. As a matter of fact, much of my practice log book is filled by tracking how many hits I landed for certain drills with certain timed exposure.
Point is.... you will default to your training, don't train in ways you don't want to default to.
The problem is that as true as that is for some things, it's not universal. By your argument, unless you practice extensively by responding to a live person pointing a live gun at you, you'll never draw your gun in a fight. Or to take your "shoot them to the ground" example to its extreme, unless you practice shooting live people to the ground, you're not really practicing it right.
F2S, good post.
Todd, I agree- Everyone I have ever seen go through FOF has shot the first person they started with until they fell- even the 100%, never done anything but IPSC, gamer.
I can't, and I was referring to the empty brass scar, which I'm sure you know of and "might" agree resulted in a prolonged fight in which the Officers died in. Would you cite an example where starting from the surrender position on a drill benefited someone?
I'm not getting into another spiraling debate with you. You're the one who mentioned training scars leading to people's deaths and you're the one who listed shooting from surrender position as an example. Then you went on to shift and change the rest of the discussion, as well. You've demonstrated an uncanny ability to bring intelligent threads to a painful end.
I'm out ...
Why do people spend money on mediocre training, from mediocre trainers, that have a mediocre background, and a mediocre skill-set, when they could spend the money on outstanding training, from outstanding trainers, that have an outstanding background, and an outstanding skill-set? Usually excellent training doesn't cost much more then mediocre training.......
I think it's because the mediocre level exists at some from in just about every little local gun range, and you have to travel to get the good stuff. I'm doing an LAV 1911 class next month. It "only" costs $400 for the class, but I'm spending that much again on ammo (minimum of 800 rounds), about $200 on a hotel, and driving a day in each direction, so the total for a 2 day class is actually closer to $1300 or so. If I went to my local range in Memphis, an "advanced" pistol course would cost me $60 and maybe another $100 for ammo.
$1300 vs. $160.
Most people don't know what they don't know.
Stating that releasing the slide with an overhand grasp is a "gross motor skill" and easier to do under stress is one of the most retarded things that is consistently repeated by "trainers" that have neither the skill or knowledge to know the difference.
I might also add that any trainer who says there is only one way to do something (like release the slide ;)) is also limited in skill and experience.
Wow, lots of input here....
I like your demarcations:
As I see it there are four major categories of firearms training.
1- Fundamental. The first steps. I also consider bulls-eye shooting/competitions to be fundamental in nature.
2- Competition. Training designed to elevate the shooter's classification and competitiveness in games such as IDPA, USPSA, and 3-gun type comps.
3- Personal defense. Applicable to the CCW/armed individual.
4- Combat. Most applicable to heavily armed individuals that will be working in teams.
It seems pretty straight forward to fill in the blanks since you hit the hit points in your post.
There's a whole lot of skills needed in #4 that simply do not apply in the other 3. Sure, 1-3 do build into "Combat" skills but map reading (really reading the map for tactical advantage), terrain analysis, supporting arms, land nav and on and on simply are not required in the previous 3.
There is a similarity in the mind set between personal defense and combat, but again the combat mind set (as in a war zone/movement to contact) for a grunt is like no other.
All in all, well stated.
I would tend to agree with those demarcations as well, except to say that most people think they have moved past #1 when in fact they aren't even close. (myself included in many cases)
I see a whole lot of people at matches/classes/drills running around doing a whole lot of fancy shit that still can't reliably hit what they're aiming at in the time frame that they are allotting themselves.
"it all starts with getting a single hit on a single target", or "it all starts with getting a single hit from stationary on a single stationary target". Moving on to dashing all about the range covered in molle webbing before you can do the above is rather premature IMHO.
We are now up to offering three sets of drills on our drills nights, handgun on the left, carbine on the right, and "advanced" in the middle (which is not my idea). Every time I take break from running the carbine side and look over at the "advanced", I see a lot of guys that never get out of the lowest 1/3 at our matches, making the same mistakes they always make at the matches, which could be corrected by learning the fundamentals we're going over in our boring old "basic" carbine drills.
Tonight we'll start the same way we always do. Everyone at 7 yards, give me one perfect shot through that paster. We'll asses the group, give 'em another go if we need to, and the whole rest of the night will depend on the results of that simple drill.
Concerning training scars: I have limited military training, brown shoe Navy, and lots of desert shooting and range time but I now want to train and attend classes. Due to time constraints with work I'm not able to travel that often for "fun" so it limits how often I could attend one of the top tier instructor's classes.
With that in mind I know Front Sight doesn't have the reputation as a serious gun fighting school but what are your educated opinions on starting there for learning the basics, due to proximity, and then progressing on to the real gun fighting schools?
Due to time constraints with work I'm not able to travel that often for "fun" so it limits how often I could attend one of the top tier instructor's classes.
I echo this. Living in good old Wyoming severely limits the amount of trainers/courses around here. For the most part, I've read a lot over the years, watched a lot of training videos, and practiced a whole lot over the years. I thought I was pretty proficient, until having looked over what some of you guys do. I've read shooting forums for years, but I guess it's just like trainers, there are quality ones, and there are apparently "retarded" ones. I feel I've reached a point where teaching myself has reached a beneficial limit and I need outside instruction. That being said, the financial burden as well as the inavailability of time for a long trip, I just don't see any formal training for me outside of the 400 miles range (pretty much everywhere for me). Please keep that in mind if I step on my tongue when commenting, I just don't have access to better training. Damn I wish I'd win the lottery already!
Thanks Rob_s, much appreciated. Good idea, I'll have to look into it more. I know about 15-20 people who'd be interested. Not sure if that'd be worth their time. I think I'll start getting the word out to some of my friends.
Concerning training scars: I have limited military training, brown shoe Navy, and lots of desert shooting and range time but I now want to train and attend classes. Due to time constraints with work I'm not able to travel that often for "fun" so it limits how often I could attend one of the top tier instructor's classes.
With that in mind I know Front Sight doesn't have the reputation as a serious gun fighting school but what are your educated opinions on starting there for learning the basics, due to proximity, and then progressing on to the real gun fighting schools?
BTW, if you're in Las Vegas, be sure to keep your eyes peeled, I'm pretty sure top tier instructors do come through your neighborhood. IIRC Magpul had a carbine class in Reno just last month.
Failure2Stop
05-05-09, 18:31
I really don't want to turn this into "F2S's Recommended Trainers", so instead I will talk about my perception of skill progress.
As many have already said, it all starts and ends with placing a shot exactly where it needs to go. Whether we are talking about the clinical accuracy of the 1,000 yard line on some manicured range with 20 minutes of prep-time or the cranial vault of some smelly jihadist with your secondary on the move in a dingy room in the heart of Douchebagistan, the shooter must be able to hit his target, consistently and on demand.
It all begins with sights and trigger. It doesn't take a ninja to teach sights and trigger. To learn the fundamental fundamentals, bulls-eye shooters are a great resource. Frankly I find bulls-eye to be about as exciting as watching someone do Soduku, but it is perfecting fundamental marksmanship.
I feel that paying $400 to a top-tier instructor and $800 on ammo when still suffering from anticipation issues is a waste of your money and their time. There are plenty of people around local ranges that should be able to teach the fundamentals.
Once you can consistently place 8 of 10 slow-fire shots into the "black" of an NRA 25 yard target at 25 yards with your pistol you are ready to move on. With a standard iron-sighted AR, you should be able to produce 4 MOA 10 round slow-fire groups out to 300 yards from a prone position.
I saw a vid of Rob Leatham once and he did all his fast fancy shooting but at the end of his training session he went back to the basic findamentals...slow fire aiming at the bullet hole.
I feel that paying $400 to a top-tier instructor and $800 on ammo when still suffering from anticipation issues is a waste of your money and their time.
Wouldn't have said it any better. Everybody wants to be "advanced" and "tactical"- runing around barrels, hiding behind cover, performing Aussie peels, "Team Tactics", etc.... :rolleyes: Hey buddy why don't you learn how to consistently reload that pistol first!
Most crap their pants when they find out what my standards are before I will let them do anything "advanced"....
We had some of this happen last night, as expected.
We had several shooters that were grumbling about standing around on the line shooting yet they were consistently the same shooters that couldn't get their holdovers straightened out.
I will say, however, that an instructor like Randy Cain is a GREAT place to start. Randy will go through the draw stroke, sight alignment, trigger press, etc. in ways that most people will never think of on their own. I first went to his Handgun 101 class after shooting for 10 years and was amazed to learn what all I was doing wrong on my own. In fact, I'll be going back again in two weeks to get a refresher and start from scratch because my handgun skills have degraded so far.
I would rather learn the fundamentals from a guy like Randy who has an eye towards the bigger picture and a goal of teaching you how to fight with the gun rather than a local NRA instructor who's end state is making the gun go bang.
As I see it there are four major categories of firearms training.
1- Fundamental. The first steps. I also consider bulls-eye shooting/competitions to be fundamental in nature.
2- Competition. Training designed to elevate the shooter's classification and competitiveness in games such as IDPA, USPSA, and 3-gun type comps.
3- Personal defense. Applicable to the CCW/armed individual.
4- Combat. Most applicable to heavily armed individuals that will be working in teams.
I agree with the first two, but I think the other two could be renamed.
3. Defensive Shooting - Why take personal out of it, well because it's valid for both patrol officers, and civilians. Both are likely to be involved in reactive defensive shooting.
4. Team Combat Shooting - This is where you get the team environment, these type of schools aren't as applicable to civilians.
I've taken courses in all four groups, and every time I learned something valuable. I think that fundamental courses are important, you need to spend time working on the basics frequently, the difference between middle of the road shooting and a top end USPSA, or military shooter is that the high end shooters can do the basics on demand quickly.
IMO once every couple years it might be a good idea to attend a fundamentals class, and IMO some of the best fundamentals classes are put on by competition shooting schools.
Failure2Stop
05-06-09, 17:28
I would rather learn the fundamentals from a guy like Randy who has an eye towards the bigger picture and a goal of teaching you how to fight with the gun rather than a local NRA instructor who's end state is making the gun go bang.
I would definately rather learn from someone that understands all relevant aspects of my needed training progression. I don't think that there is any good argument against it, as long as I am in the appropriate course for my skill level.
As I see it, it isn't an issue if the local NRA dude is proficient in instructing what you are looking to learn. He will also probably cost you a lot less, so that when the shooter arrives at whatever next level course he chooses, he will not be using up the instructor's and other students' time. It is very difficult to teach someone to properly prep a DA trigger on the presentation in relation to acceptable sight picture if the shooter can't manage A zone hits from 10 yards with no time limit. The faster each student can assimilate and perform the taught skills the faster the class can progress, and that $400 spent on Mr Cain is worth far more than the material items that could be procured with that money- watching a high level instructor work through basic trigger control with someone is not nearly as rewarding.
I guess that some of this is the shooter making an honest assessment of his skill level and his desired end-state and choosing the appropriate instructor for his current reality.
Failure2Stop
05-06-09, 17:39
I agree with the first two, but I think the other two could be renamed.
I don't really care what you call them, you could refer to them as white, purple, blue and Thursday if you want. I was simply trying to illustrate that there are different types of training available, and while they have many things in common, they also have many things that separate them in intent and purpose. I have no illusions of coining terms.
David Blinder
05-06-09, 17:44
Excellent comments. I tell people that if on demand, they can't put 5 hits on a 5" target at 5 yards in 5 seconds from an extended ready, they don't really need to be concerned with intermediate anything much less "advanced".
Matt Edwards
05-09-09, 20:55
Stating that releasing the slide with an overhand grasp is a "gross motor skill" and easier to do under stress is one of the most retarded things that is consistently repeated by "trainers" that have neither the skill or knowledge to know the difference.
Is that too long for a sig line? If I got a buck everytime I've had guys stare at me after asking "If you can't hit the slide stop with a thumb under stress, please explain how you were mysteriously able to hit the mag release button with a thumb before hand. Or did you just smack the pistol on the ground, gross motor skills and all, untill the mag flew out?"
Not to mention the trainers who teach slingshotting over the slide release because they claim that the slide release is a too fine of a motor skill but then spend a lot of time on trigger reset, which is even a finer motor skill.
John Frazer
05-10-09, 08:11
Excellent.
When I attended David Pennington's excellent Concealed Carry class last year, I was absolutely amazed at how many of these people -- almost all of them private citizens -- had spent years training with their Mogadishu Response Gear and had never taken a single class and in some cases never even practiced with the holster they use every day for CCW.
Does Mogadishu Response Gear have a website?
:)
Matt, ain't that the truth.....
Does Mogadishu Response Gear have a website?
:)
Yep, here- http://www.tacticalresponsegear.com/catalog/ I kid, I kid... :D
Informative interesting thread. My thanks to all who've posted.
A couple of thoughts on this subject.
I agree that there are three different (but somewhat overlapping) skill sets associated with competition, personal defense, and ground combat (for lack of a better term). I have noticed that it seems somewhat easy to find an instructor/trainer/teacher focused on competition(look for a successful competitor?) or an instructor/trainer/teacher focused on ground combat (look for someone with fighting and instructing experience?), but much more difficult to find an instructor/trainer/teacher focusing on personal defense.
Sure, it's relatively easy to find someone who will teach gunhandling, trigger control, clearing stoppages, etc, but the thing that seems hardest to find is good training on making the right decisions in a personal defense situation. I believe that properly designed Force on Force training is the best way potentially to facilitate learning good decision-making skills, but not all FoF is created equal. I've taken a force on force class at a school that shall remain unnamed; out of two days of training only about 10-15 minutes actually dealt with deciding whether to shoot somebody. All the other scenarios allowed us to assume that the contact needed shooting. Not good. I'm looking at a FoF class at a different school here in Texas in November; maybe that one will be better.
On the subject of why people spend their good money and time for mediocre training instead of only going to good training, I believe that it's difficult for a student to know what training is good, especially prior to attending the training. Nobody, AFAIK, is providing the service of evaluating trainers against some set of useful criteria and then making that info available to the marketplace (for a fee of course). This I think is a huge problem. Even after attending training, students may not know whether the skills taught to them were valuable or effective and may not be qualified to evaluate the trainer's effectiveness in facilitating learning.
Thoughts, anyone?
Bad Karma 556
07-10-09, 15:44
Hell of a good post.
It's occurred to me,too, that the quick IPSC reload might not be the best solution in a fight.Taking cover and not getting shot should be your first priority.I'm sure it has it's place in the tool bag, but realistically I can't envision the situation where it would be the optimal choice.
It's occurred to me,too, that the quick IPSC reload might not be the best solution in a fight.Taking cover and not getting shot should be your first priority.I'm sure it has it's place in the tool bag, but realistically I can't envision the situation where it would be the optimal choice.
(emphasis mine)
No, killing (aka "stopping") the threat is your first priority. Taking cover & not getting shot for 15 seconds has done absolutely nothing but extend the length of the engagement by 15 seconds. Cover is just a platform that gives you more time to make the shot(s). It's cover, not cower.
The "IPSC" speed reload (an in-battery reload leaving the partially spent magazine on the ground) is useful any time you have the time & desire to top off your gun but lack the ability to predict whether your moment of peace will extend long enough for you to perform a magazine exchange of some kind. It's not something you would do while in the middle of engaging active target(s).
RogerinTPA
07-10-09, 20:21
(emphasis mine)
No, killing (aka "stopping") the threat is your first priority. Taking cover & not getting shot for 15 seconds has done absolutely nothing but extend the length of the engagement by 15 seconds. Cover is just a platform that gives you more time to make the shot(s). It's cover, not cower.
The "IPSC" speed reload (an in-battery reload leaving the partially spent magazine on the ground) is useful any time you have the time & desire to top off your gun but lack the ability to predict whether your moment of peace will extend long enough for you to perform a magazine exchange of some kind. It's not something you would do while in the middle of engaging active target(s).
:p:p:p
Most excellent post!
Bad Karma 556
07-10-09, 21:23
(emphasis mine)
No, killing (aka "stopping") the threat is your first priority. Taking cover & not getting shot for 15 seconds has done absolutely nothing but extend the length of the engagement by 15 seconds. Cover is just a platform that gives you more time to make the shot(s). It's cover, not cower.
The "IPSC" speed reload (an in-battery reload leaving the partially spent magazine on the ground) is useful any time you have the time & desire to top off your gun but lack the ability to predict whether your moment of peace will extend long enough for you to perform a magazine exchange of some kind. It's not something you would do while in the middle of engaging active target(s).
I stand corrected.
Maybe I should have stated things a bit more clearly.
It was more the attitude I've run across,that you have to stand out in the open, with a perfect firing grip on the weapon, while executing a "speed reload", or else you're doing wrong.I've seen more gunstore commandos than I care to recount corner and lecture some poor guy wh doesn't know any better.
Your point is absolutely valid: stopping the threat is the first priority.
Jay Cunningham
07-10-09, 21:28
You would be surprised at the "schools" and/or instructors that really *do* teach that not getting shot is in fact the first priority. There are students of these schools/instructors that will argue until they're blue in their virtual face that "not getting shot" is priority.
For what it's worth, I am 100% with Todd's assessment.
I stand corrected.
Maybe I should have stated things a bit more clearly.
It was more the attitude I've run across,that you have to stand out in the open, with a perfect firing grip on the weapon, while executing a "speed reload", or else you're doing wrong.I've seen more gunstore commandos than I care to recount corner and lecture some poor guy wh doesn't know any better.
Your point is absolutely valid: stopping the threat is the first priority.
Nothing to correct, just a miscomm.
For what it's worth, I've seen instructors teach that, too. A federal agency I'm working with is going through a change to its qual course, and one of the resident "experts" objected to adding slidelock reloads to the timed portion of the course because -- I am not making this up -- he argued the agency should not be teaching agents to shoot to slide lock but rather they should reload before the gun goes empty.
Which reminds me, we need an absolutely frakkin' flabbergasted smiley.
On a lighter note, there's a drill I use in class which is sort of a bastardization of Ken Hackathorn's Box Drill. It's not at all uncommon to have students speed reload between targets rather than go to slidelock. Every single time it happens, a simple "uh ... you reloaded while there were still threats five yards in front of you?" is all it takes to make the lightbulb glow bright.
Jay Cunningham
07-10-09, 22:46
Which reminds me, we need an absolutely frakkin' flabbergasted smiley.
http://www.theakforum.net/phpBB2/images/smiles/anim_toke.gif
Bad Karma 556
07-11-09, 16:09
Nothing to correct, just a miscomm.
For what it's worth, I've seen instructors teach that, too. A federal agency I'm working with is going through a change to its qual course, and one of the resident "experts" objected to adding slidelock reloads to the timed portion of the course because -- I am not making this up -- he argued the agency should not be teaching agents to shoot to slide lock but rather they should reload before the gun goes empty.
Which reminds me, we need an absolutely frakkin' flabbergasted smiley.
On a lighter note, there's a drill I use in class which is sort of a bastardization of Ken Hackathorn's Box Drill. It's not at all uncommon to have students speed reload between targets rather than go to slidelock. Every single time it happens, a simple "uh ... you reloaded while there were still threats five yards in front of you?" is all it takes to make the lightbulb glow bright.
It would be funny if it wasn't so flat out irresponsible that a member of a Fed agency would advocate something like that.The main private firearms trainer here has remarked on some similar experiences.I guess any law enforcement or military unit could have issues with money or time being factors affecting what they can teach, but I would hope individual members would want to expand their pool of knowledge.That is an advantage for private citizens: we can pick and choose instead of having an enforced curriculum.On the flip side(resources permitting) if you're a private citizen, you have no excuse for not at least trying to keep up with currrent techniques.
Your lighter note reminds me of Patrick Rogers lubing overbearing students rifles with Vagisil.Gotta keep that sense of humor.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.