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

[Failure2Stop]

Jack,
Why do you prefer USPSA to IDPA?
Thx

IDPA has a lot of rules that a shooter has to abide by to avoid incurring procedural penalties, many of which are highly subject to RO interpretation/perception/opinion. This doesn't matter much to someone that is just out shooting and having a good time, but for those of us that are competitive, it makes things annoying.

USPSA is pretty much all about shooting and stage planning, with an edge to the better shooter. The top shooters will be the ones that shoot the best, and at the tippy top will be the ones that shoot the best AND execute the best approach to the stage. They will have more targets, more movement, and generally will require more mental dexterity.

USPSA also has a better classification system. The D, C, B, A, M, GM progression gives a better identification of true shooting skill at the B, A, M, GM level. IDPA "Master" (their highest classification) is about equal to a "B" class USPSA shooter.

Yeah, USPSA allows stage walk-throughs, and arguably more "gaming" than IDPA, but with the number of targets that one will be expected to remember, along with planning reloads (Production, Limited 10, and Revolver guys know what I mean), the walk-through is a necessary aspect of the game. However, none of that detracts from the shooting skill of those that perform at the upper levels.

Way back when, when I made "A" in USPSA Limited, I was practically bursting at the seams (that was years ago, and my membership has long since expired), because I knew how much work it took to get there. When I recently qualified as a "Master" in IDPA, while it's nice to be able to say, I was not nearly as enthusiastic as I knew what that level of performance really means when compared to equivalent USPSA shooters.

Don't take my criticisms of IDPA to stop you from shooting it.
I still shoot them both, along with Steel Challenge. They are all competitions, and I can verify/track performance that I had not pre-planned, while essentially "cold".

As far as competitions go, I prefer "run-n-gun" competitions such as USPSA, 3-gun, and IDPA (though you could call it "walk-n-shoot" if you really want to get people upset), but there is a lot to be said for even fundamental competitive events such as bulls-eye, PPC, and high power. Not nearly as exciting, but great for honing specific skills.

[The Virus]

I can certainly see both sides.
I also participate in both, I think even though IDPA is supposed to be more "reality" based, the majority still game it.
Guys wearing fishing vests shooting glock 34 with a blade tech holster.
While I tend to either run IWB with a subcompact or OWB pancake style gear and guns that I would actually be using in reality.
This obviously is a disadvantage towards "winning" the game, however I see it as and advantage in potentialy winning a real engagement.
USPSA is more fun, the simple fact that you get to shoot alot more makes it so.

[comprido]

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)??

You are missing something huge. I'd say his claim to fame isn't that he was a deputy or a competition shooter but rather that he's an accomplished instructor that's been teaching full-time for years with a very impressive list of past clients. Avery's bio

Also, to say he's a big fan of competition shooting may be an understatement. He was a USPSA (then IPSC) national champion. He took some time off from competing (and worked through some injuries), but recently started shooting matches again.

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).

Never see the negative side? That's a gross exaggeration. I think most competition shooters that are LE/MIL or just interested in self-defense will readily tell you the negatives of competition shooting. We simply think the pros outweigh the cons.

LE Incidents? What LE incident are you referring to that competition shooting played a negative part in the outcome?

I've heard from many LEOs that credit competition shooting to helping them in shootings or near shootings, but don't know of any that have said competition shooting hurt them.

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.

And some do or did actively compete. (I could insert the Pat MacNamara link here.)

[C4IGrant]

You are missing something huge. I'd say his claim to fame isn't that he was a deputy or a competition shooter but rather that he's an accomplished instructor that's been teaching full-time for years with a very impressive list of past clients. Avery's bio

Also, to say he's a big fan of competition shooting may be an understatement. He was a USPSA (then IPSC) national champion. He took some time off from competing (and worked through some injuries), but recently started shooting matches again.

Hmm, don't think I missed anything. I guess if I was into competition shooting, I would be super impressed, but to me there are instructors with backgrounds that I am way more impressed with (from a tactics/tactical background).

You could very be right about his ability to instruct though (don't know and don't have any friends that have trained with him so I have nothing to base it off of).

Never see the negative side? That's a gross exaggeration. I think most competition shooters that are LE/MIL or just interested in self-defense will readily tell you the negatives of competition shooting. We simply think the pros outweigh the cons.

LE Incidents? What LE incident are you referring to that competition shooting played a negative part in the outcome?

Many do not see the negative side. Maybe they aren't smart enough to realize it? I know many Civy's that do not realize it.

The first one that comes to mind is the officer that dumped mag (while in a gun fight) after only firing less than half the magazine (as she would in a match).

On the tactical training side, I see competition shooters fail to use cover, have zero understanding of tactics in many different ways as they are always thinking about how to shoot a target as fast as possible and instead of doing it in the safest or most defensive way possible.

I've heard from many LEOs that credit competition shooting to helping them in shootings or near shootings, but don't know of any that have said competition shooting hurt them.

Actually what they are benefitting from is the fact that they had a goal and set out to achieve it. This forced them to log many hours and thousands of rounds on the range. They probably also sought out better training than what they previously had (all good things).

IMHO, it is ok if someone isn't into competition shooting as they can still have goals and can grow as a shooter (without possibly creating bad habits). If you haven't seen or don't know, there are some shooters out there that have never shot in a competition match that will absolutely burn you down (all without shooting down loaded ammo or using a race gun).


Of course there are instructors that do shoot from time to time in some regional gun games, but most of them have hit the "delete" button on gun games for many reasons and don't seem to suffer from it.

If you are into it and can separate the good from the bad, then great!




C4

[6933]

Hmm, don't think I missed anything. I guess if I was into competition shooting, I would be super impressed, but to me there are instructors with backgrounds that I am way more impressed with (from a tactics/tactical background)
C4

Exactly. I can think of multiple instructors that have a better resume of whom they have worked with.

[comprido]

Hmm, don't think I missed anything. I guess if I was into competition shooting, I would be super impressed, but to me there are instructors with backgrounds that I am way more impressed with (from a tactics/tactical background).

Since you didn't even mention he's an instructor, I'd say you missed something, at least in your post. Maybe you noticed it but didn't think it was worth mentioning. But by not including that he's an instructor (much like yourself), you didn't give the readers the full picture of who Ron Avery is. He's not just a deputy that likes to compete. He's a full-time instructor that teaches law enforcement, military and civilians.

The first one that comes to mind is the officer that dumped mag (while in a gun fight) after only firing less than half the magazine (as she would in a match).

C4

Can you give us the full story or link, please?

[comprido]

Exactly. I can think of multiple instructors that have a better resume of whom they have worked with.

Fair enough. So be it. I'm sure you can find instructors with more impressive resumes. But that doesn't mean his isn't impressive, or you shouldn't pay attention to what he writes.

(I don't get some of language in the article either - myth vs hype- and don't agree with everything he wrote. But I'm smart enough not to dismiss it out of hand just because he's not from JSOC.)

[RamZar]

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)??

As someone else also indicated Ron Avery has an extensive CV in the firearms training field as well as having been in LE and competitive shooting.

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).

Competitive shooting is a double-edged sword. You can game it to your detriment. Ron actually talked about this in a full article a month ago:

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”

Those that can balance things can see the rewards.

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.

True. However, for most the price of admission is much lower to use competitive shooting as a frequent adjunct to further training.

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.

Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn were two of the original founders of IDPA and competed.

[Voodoo_Man]

His opinion, some I agree some I do not.

Tag for later

[StrikerFired]

Agree with some of it, there is a lot more to this discussion to be had. I do compete at a local IDPA club, however, the Match Director keeps all of the LEO together in our own squad and has a separate course of fire for us. We go with our own departmental training and don't get scored by IDPA rules so hey, it works for me...