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

[Ty_B]

Travis Haley certainly has a lot of nice things to say about Ron Avery. I guess if you don't like Travis, then his recommendation might be reason enough for you to also not like Ron, but he describes him as being a 'plank owner' of some of the modern techniques of shooting.

I don't personally know either man, but I respect Travis for what he has brought to the table of firearms training, so I'm inclined to respect his opinion. I realize that in this day and age, it could just be a business relationship, but again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to see Ron and Travis talking about shooting, it's on the HSP blog.

[Rosco Benson]

Is that 2-3 match-minutes actually beneficial to the shooter?

No less an authority than Jim Cirillo thought so. Cirillo noted that he felt more pressure and anxiety when shooting an important match than he did during his gunfights while he was in the NYCPD.

Even at a local match, the shooter has to perform at the beep. No mulligans. No do-overs. All in front of peers and strangers. All of this increases the stress the shooter feels and has to overcome to turn in a good performance.

So, yes, as an innoculation against stress/pressure, it is beneficial.

Rosco

[azidpa]

Since everyone "against" latched on already, and I noticed really only one rebuttal, I'll have to say...

No "gamer" I know, shows up to shoot without having logged a lot of rounds in practice. Sure there are some who just don't practice enough, but they're generally not your above average competition shooters anyway. It's apparent who logs the rounds, and who doesn't.

Is it any wonder that people like Julie Golob, Jerry Miculek, Doug Keonig, Brian Zins, Rob Leathem, Ernie Langdon, etc, etc, etc ALWAYS seem to be shooting something?

Sure, I suppose you can get B class (or higher) USPSA with raw talent, but it seems pretty demanding from the guys I know at that level, or above.

I also wager that it would be easier to take a top level IPSC shooter, who has never had a tactics class, and teach him tactics than to build up an average shooter on both tactics and shooting. Think on it for a bit.

I agree that one of the benefits of competing is that it motivates the shooter to practice more live & dry fire.

For the person that uses a match as their 'dynamic' practice - I don't think the cost/time benefit is worth it. To each their own.

[C4IGrant]

Travis Haley certainly has a lot of nice things to say about Ron Avery. I guess if you don't like Travis, then his recommendation might be reason enough for you to also not like Ron, but he describes him as being a 'plank owner' of some of the modern techniques of shooting.

I don't personally know either man, but I respect Travis for what he has brought to the table of firearms training, so I'm inclined to respect his opinion. I realize that in this day and age, it could just be a business relationship, but again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to see Ron and Travis talking about shooting, it's on the HSP blog.

Cool. Thanks for the info. Will check it out.


C4

[GJM]

While I get the first few runs through a shoot house are definitely different than the square range, and I definitely experienced stress on those first runs 20 years ago at Gunsite, for an experienced participant, isn't a shoot house essentially a 3D square range?

I have over 400 hours of level D simulator time in jet and turbo prop aircraft, that came through regular recurrent training. First times in a simulator, in terms of what I felt, it might as well have been the real aircraft. However, after some hours of experience, you quickly understand there is a big difference between any simulator and the real aircraft, and that is while you may look bad, you don't die if you make a mistake. How is a shoot house any different?

[okie john]

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

Same with Pat McNamara.


Okie John

[C4IGrant]

While I get the first few runs through a shoot house are definitely different than the square range, and I definitely experienced stress on those first runs 20 years ago at Gunsite, for an experienced participant, isn't a shoot house essentially a 3D square range?

I have over 400 hours of level D simulator time in jet and turbo prop aircraft, that came through regular recurrent training. First times in a simulator, in terms of what I felt, it might as well have been the real aircraft. However, after some hours of experience, you quickly understand there is a big difference between any simulator and the real aircraft, and that is while you may look bad, you don't die if you make a mistake. How is a shoot house any different?

Don't know if this is directed at me or not, but I will take it.



A shoot house (or Kill House) brings many levels to it. The complexity of searching for someone to shoot is much different than always seeing them in front of you. I have logged at least 100hrs in various shoot houses (Blackwater, Ft. Harmar, etc). When I step into a house, I am almost calm (feel at home). I am fundamentally sound and know it. This allows me to execute at a much higher level than someone with just two runs through a house (in all lighting conditions, ability to discriminate between a threat and non-threat, alone or in a team).

Like an onion, there are many layers to this equation. Here is my generic breakdown of the different learning levels:

1. Single man defensive clear (daylight).
2. Single man defensive clear (night).
3. Single man offensive (hybrid).
4. 2 man offensive clear (daylight).
5. 2 man offensive clear (night).
6. 2 man defensive (hybrid) clear (daylight).
7. 2 man defensive (hybrid) clear (Night).
8. 3-4 man offensive clear (daylight).
9. 3-4 man offensive clear (night).
10. 3-4 man defensive (hybrid) clear.

Once you are pretty good at all the above (meaning good hits, move well, minimize mistakes and use cover properly), you then train in the same environment with FoF to validate your ability.



C4

[militarymoron]

I have logged at least 100yrs in various shoot houses (Blackwater, Ft. Harmar, etc).

C4

you look damn good for a man of your age, grant

[C4IGrant]

you look damn good for a man of your age, grant

LOL, damn fat fingers! Thanks for proof reading my comments for me brother.


C4

[GJM]

Grant, thanks for your response.

My view is we have shooting and we have tactics. Shooting is something that can, more or less, be measured in inches, seconds or other quantitative units. The closer we shoot like Vogel, Stoeger, Avery or Leatham, meaning execute at a high level with little conscious thought, the better.

Then we have tactics. They may vary based on whether we are a civilian, police officer, or soldier and how and where we live. Unlike shooting skills, tactics are by their nature subjective, and difficult to measure. Tactics are essentially opinions, based on intellect and experience. For example, you have offered up your breakdown of 10 levels of learning, which are based on your opinions. While a 3-4 man offensive clear at night probably isn't on my must do list, undoubtedly you have reasons for it. Tactics can be taught in many ways in a number of different settings. Unless the tactics you are exposed to are bad, the more exposure the better.

I think increasing shooting skills and exposure to tactics are both important, and couldn't imagine focusing on just one.