Ron Avery on Gunfight Training: Hype, Myth, and BS

[RamZar]

Ron Avery had a practical and insightful set of articles at PoliceOne.com (links included) about a year or so ago on Gunfight Training:

1. Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part one)
   
   • Hype: “Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.”
   • Myth: “If your heart rate goes above 140 BPM, you won’t be able to see your sights.”
   • BS: “If you keep missing your target, you need to slow down.”
2. Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part two)
   
   • Hype: “Speed’s fine but accuracy is final.”
   • Hype: “You use your handgun to fight your way to your rifle.”
   • Myth: “In a real situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.”
   • BS: “The square range is BS!”
   • BS: “Competition will get you killed.”
3. Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part three)
   
   • Hype: “Experience is the key to performance.”
   • BS: “The street is the only real test.”
   • Hype: “I am ‘well trained’ compared to the average guy on the street.”
   • BS: “If you fail in training, you will develop a ‘training scar’ that will impact you negatively in the future so don’t ever let your students fail.”
   • Hype: “I am an ‘advanced’ shooter.”
   • Hype: “I am an ‘operator,’ a ‘tactical operator,’ an ‘advanced tactical operator,’ an ‘Advanced, tactical elite operator,’ an ‘advanced, tactical, elite operational warrior/operator/athlete,’ an ‘advanced firearms instructor,’ an ‘advanced tactical firearms instructor,’ or blah, blah, blah....”
4. Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part four)
   
   • Myth: “I will win because I am ‘more tactical’ or ‘more experienced’ than the other guy.”
   • Hype and BS: “My technique is tactical, not competition-shooting technique.”

[DacoRoman]

Great reading, thanks for posting. Also apropos a recent thread in which demo-ing in front of students was discussed, it was really interesting to read the author's thoughts on the subject. Really thought provoking all the way around. And not to oversimplify what he wrote, but it is interesting, if not a bit illuminating, to see him place such a high value on competition as a test and proving ground of real world practical shooting performance that in fact best mirrors one's real world fighting or defensive capacity with a gun. I wonder how many of the top tier trainers currently, or have in the past, competed, and what importance they place on practical shooting competitions.

[RamZar]

Ron had a more recent and expanded article on competitive shooting as firearms training:

Will competition get you killed? -- The younger generation of police officers are becoming interested in competition as a way to “put their skills to the test”

There was also this article on demoing drills by another author/instrucor at PoliceOne.com:

Firearms training: Shoot to thrill or teach the skill? Do firearms instructors have the right and privilege of discharging several hundred rounds during the course of instruction?

[The Virus]

Great reading, thanks for posting. Also apropos a recent thread in which demo-ing in front of students was discussed, it was really interesting to read the author's thoughts on the subject. Really thought provoking all the way around. And not to oversimplify what he wrote, but it is interesting, if not a bit illuminating, to see him place such a high value on competition as a test and proving ground of real world practical shooting performance that in fact best mirrors one's real world fighting or defensive capacity with a gun. I wonder how many of the top tier trainers currently, or have in the past, competed, and what importance they place on practical shooting competitions.

Please look into Frank Proctor, doesn't get much more Top Tier than that guy.

[Failure2Stop]

Great reading, thanks for posting. Also apropos a recent thread in which demo-ing in front of students was discussed, it was really interesting to read the author's thoughts on the subject. Really thought provoking all the way around. And not to oversimplify what he wrote, but it is interesting, if not a bit illuminating, to see him place such a high value on competition as a test and proving ground of real world practical shooting performance that in fact best mirrors one's real world fighting or defensive capacity with a gun. I wonder how many of the top tier trainers currently, or have in the past, competed, and what importance they place on practical shooting competitions.

I have often stated my opinion on competition, specifically that I encourage it. While there is a lot more to a gunfight than running around and putting 2 shots on each target, it is a great test of certain aspects, done with stress. And while a competition in front of peers is not the same thing as fighting for your life with a gun, it is still a form of stress that will help with stress mitigation.

I prefer USPSA to IDPA, but any competition is good.

Most of the high performing students in my classes are also competitive shooters.

Eta: some thoughts on the article coming soon, once I get to my laptop.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[Arctic1]

Cut from the article:

Myth: “In a real situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.”
Reality — If your training is inadequate in volume, specificity. or intensity (as in, not enough adaptive stress), then you MAY perform subpar.

However, I have performed above my training in both real and competitive situations and have seen too many others I have trained RISE to the challenge and do extremely well in situations where others fail. Mental programming and conditioning along with adequate preparation in other areas is the key to better performance.

Thoughts — Bottom line is to train at the proper level of intensity and specificity and you will not only do well, you may do even better than you did in training. I have trained many people now that have gone on to win their fight under really tough conditions and performed really well. Stop telling people that they are going to suck when they get into a deadly force situation. It is not true!

I have a different take on this saying, although it is also similar in some aspects. For me, and my guys, it isn't so much about not performing, or "sucking", during a real situation. It's more about the fact that what you have practiced before combat, is what you will do IN combat. You won't magically develop new skills in that situation, you know what you know. It is more a reinforcement of always practicing, doing drills, maintaining or improving skills.

Not to detract from what Mr. Avery states, just a different perspective.

[Failure2Stop]

Cut from the article:



I have a different take on this saying, although it is also similar in some aspects. For me, and my guys, it isn't so much about not performing or "sucking" during a real situation. It's more about what you have practiced before combat, is what you will do IN combat. You won't magically develop new skills in that situation, you know what you know.

Not to detract from what Mr. Avery states, just a different perspective.

This is something I am going to hit on.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[The Virus]

Jack,
Why do you prefer USPSA to IDPA?
Thx

[Failure2Stop]

From the article:

Myth: “In a real situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.”
Reality — If your training is inadequate in volume, specificity. or intensity (as in, not enough adaptive stress), then you MAY perform subpar.

However, I have performed above my training in both real and competitive situations and have seen too many others I have trained RISE to the challenge and do extremely well in situations where others fail. Mental programming and conditioning along with adequate preparation in other areas is the key to better performance.

Thoughts — Bottom line is to train at the proper level of intensity and specificity and you will not only do well, you may do even better than you did in training. I have trained many people now that have gone on to win their fight under really tough conditions and performed really well. Stop telling people that they are going to suck when they get into a deadly force situation. It is not true!

The quoted "You will not rise to the occasion, but default to your level of training." was even my sig line for a while.

I disagree with Mr Avery's thought that the concept is a myth, though I agree with the essence of what he is saying. Maybe he is just reading it differently than I am, or maybe I am a simpleton that doesn't get what he is saying.

My perception of the issue is that we cannot expect to be good at things that we do not do well. Pretty obvious statement, I know.
If your working knowledge of firearms is limited to blasting through a few mags at the local dump at random pieces of debris, do you think that you will be able to make a 1 second draw from concealment to hit a partial head target at 10 meters? If you have never pushed yourself to go as fast as you can, how fast do you expect to go when you are fighting for your life? If you can't hit a 5 1/2 inch circle at 25 yards under generous time constraints, do you think that you will be able to do so in the dark, while someone is shooting at you?

I don't think that the "default to your level of training" necessarily means that you will suck when put under duress, but rather that your best performance in training/practice/evaluation is pretty much going to be the upper limit of your performance in a fight (barring the "luck" variable).

[C4IGrant]

I have no idea who Ron Avery is (so had to read his bio). It would appear that he was a deputy in CO and is a big fan of competition shooting. Is this his claim to fame (don't know if I am missing something or not here)??

Reading through his statements, I am not really sure what "hype" means. Does that mean that the statements he listed are FALSE? TRUE? Or just over used??? Don't know.

I would agree with F2S. If you never practice, you aren't going to MAGICALLY get better in a gun fight. I also think that if you SUCK on the square range, you will SUCK (X2) in the real world.

The thing that bothers me about competition shooters is they never see the negative side (like all the bad habits that people get from it in order to win at the "game"). Of COURSE, there are people the can and do realize the differences between a game and the real world. There are others though that cannot (see it all the time in tactical based training classes, LE incidents, etc).

I don't know if people realize this or not, but you can compete (which is a good thing) without the silly BS. We do it all the time in "tactical" classes. In fact, most all of the well known firearms instructors incorporate many timed drills, tests, team "games", etc in order to push the students. All without creating any bad habits.

From what I know, many of the Tier 1 firearms instructors that I talk to or know a lot about do not compete in any (or rarely) gun games. is that a clue? Don't know, but is something to consider.


Before I get a bunch of butt hurt comments from gun game guru's, I think EVERYONE can learn something from competition shooters. In fact, I would love to get some training from Rob Leatham.



C4