G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 75

Thread: Article: Training for Reality: Reloads and Situational Awareness

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,839
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MegademiC View Post
    Regarding the bold: this is where we disagree/misunderstand. I agree the 1-r-1 should not be training, its a method of measurement. You need to measure stuff isolated to get real, scientific data.

    Edit: I guess taking your article as only referring to ccw and leo (in a vaccum away from competition), yes, practicing reloads at all is pretty pointless. However, other metrics such as speed and accuracy are also measured in various drills, some of which are isolated- like an untimed b-8 at 25yds, or practicing sight tracking/recoil management while shooting at a berm.

    How do you propose one measures his performance to track improvement?
    The article was, in my opinion, pretty specific in its description of wasted concepts in training.

    The issue with "metrics" is that you either do them on a square range in a vacuum or you do them in a force on force type situation and time them there. The issue is, of course, the drills will immediately change as the moment you start introducing force on force you will instantly and organic see movement added.

    As such, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot want to look at metrics in the framework of tracking performance and believe those metrics (drills) are viable in real world applications. It just doesn't work that way.

    The middle ground is have metrics you shoot on a square range in vacuum once in a blue moon, I am talking about once every few months and have the overwhelming majority of your training exist in the combatives/accuracy (Dryfire) arena.

    That just doesn't happen now a days as people like to play games and the only way you "level up" or "get better" at the game is to play it the way everyone else does.

    Again, I am not looking to hash out this debate as every time I have tried to have it the threads get trolled to death by the pro-gaming types (and there are a lot more of them than not) and the concepts get lost.

    Another way to consider this - is there any real world statistical data to show that square range metrics done in a vacuum apply to real world scenario's ?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    436
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    The article was, in my opinion, pretty specific in its description of wasted concepts in training.

    The issue with "metrics" is that you either do them on a square range in a vacuum or you do them in a force on force type situation and time them there. The issue is, of course, the drills will immediately change as the moment you start introducing force on force you will instantly and organic see movement added.

    As such, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot want to look at metrics in the framework of tracking performance and believe those metrics (drills) are viable in real world applications. It just doesn't work that way.

    The middle ground is have metrics you shoot on a square range in vacuum once in a blue moon, I am talking about once every few months and have the overwhelming majority of your training exist in the combatives/accuracy (Dryfire) arena.

    That just doesn't happen now a days as people like to play games and the only way you "level up" or "get better" at the game is to play it the way everyone else does.

    Again, I am not looking to hash out this debate as every time I have tried to have it the threads get trolled to death by the pro-gaming types (and there are a lot more of them than not) and the concepts get lost.

    Another way to consider this - is there any real world statistical data to show that square range metrics done in a vacuum apply to real world scenario's ?
    I agree with you and your article on the 99% level. But I have to ask. Aside from an obsessive focus on things like the ultra fast reload, is there a downside to achieving a high level of competence in executing the ultra fast reload? To be clear I am not saying one should focus more time on the reload than on the more fundamental basics like the draw, sight alignment, target discrimination, de-escalation etc. What I'm saying is that if a person is very fast AND consistent at a speedy reload is that not still an asset regardless of statistical data to the contrary?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,839
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
    I agree with you and your article on the 99% level. But I have to ask. Aside from an obsessive focus on things like the ultra fast reload, is there a downside to achieving a high level of competence in executing the ultra fast reload? To be clear I am not saying one should focus more time on the reload than on the more fundamental basics like the draw, sight alignment, target discrimination, de-escalation etc. What I'm saying is that if a person is very fast AND consistent at a speedy reload is that not still an asset regardless of statistical data to the contrary?
    It's wasted time and outside the logical concepts of training as they currently apply to the real world confrontations as we know them as of now.

    You could spend that time on things and concepts which are actually applicable to real world situations, just as you've listed.

    Beyond that, upkeep for an ultra fast skill set like that is very steep. I've done the subsecond draw thing and I stopped because the upkeep for a skill that is almost unuseable in reality is time better spent elsewhere.

    Take each minute of reload practice and dryfire, or hit a bob dummy, or run blade templates or go for a run, hell do anything that'll make you a more violent and dangerous person that train reloads for a game

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    528
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jammer Six View Post
    Another option would be for him to learn basic skills, including reloading while keeping his muzzle pointed in a direction such that in the event of a negligent discharge the bullet won't clear the berm.

    You can rationalize it all you want; an unsafe act remains unsafe.

    There's no question about whether it's improper. The picture provides all the data needed to DQ him on the spot.
    You've embodied the very point of Voodoo's OP. Why would you train to reload while muzzling the berm when the real world for which you are training has no berms?

    When training, you don't get "Disqualified." You get corrected or you get removed from the class.
    Nobody ever got shot climbing over the wall into East Berlin.

    Delivering the most precision possible, at the greatest distance possible, with the highest rate of fire possible.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,281
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jammer Six View Post
    I like this forum. In the short time I've been here, I've learned a lot. There seem to be guys here who know a lot about ARs.

    On reflection, I'm disappointed.
    You got slammed because of the way you started your response, rather than berate, hint, hint, I'll try to explain......

    Most trainers emphasize the concept of an imaginary box which includes the pistol and target. The emphasis is on doing all weapon manipulations in the box. These allows the shooter to keep their eye on the target/threat.

    As far as the shooters elbow, I drive my elbow into my side at the same spot each time I reload as it orients the pistol to the same location in space each time. Because of using techniques like this, I'm certain I could accomplish a reload, with my eyes closed, while doing a flip off the high board, but I'm scared to try.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    “You are responsible for your actions, but the world doesn’t turn around you, so it’s important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.” - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,335
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    From the article:
    Training for purpose, based on logical concepts, and not pointless speed is the direction the training industry should be moving towards. The reason to draw your pistol, the reason for aiming at a target, and the real world applicable speed at which you will make a shot that will forever be associated with your name is more important than a sub-second shot from concealment, or entertaining your followers with a "one, reload one."
    This was my biggest takeaway. There are lots of opportunities to learn HOW to shoot, but after one has solid fundamentals, learning WHEN and WHY become equally important, possibly more so. My take on the argument isn’t that competition and drills aren’t important but that:
    1. As a defensive shooter you have to recognize what drills are worth your time in furthering your survivability.
    2. How much more mechanic/manipulation work do you need (vs want or enjoy, understanding that you can always get better), and at what point do you shift to tactics and decision making?
    If you’re a defensive shooter, what other skill sets or aspects of gun fighting should you consider, based on your personal threat assessment?

    In other words, based on my personal threat assessment (see recent thread) am I better off shaving a quarter second off of my reload time with an exposed G19, or should I smooth out my draw to the shot with my j-frame in a HPG kit bag? Do I run another el-prez, or do I turn off the lights and work on low light? Should I go back to shooting bullseyes because my accuracy is degrading at speed? Should I shell out money for the same or close to same Tactical Carbine 2 class or take something like ECQC or get a gym membership? When’s the last time I truly did force on force or deadly force decision making?

    I didn’t take the article as passing judgement on competition or typical range drills. Just take a moment to ask yourself if the competition and training status quo are meeting your needs.
    Last edited by Chameleox; 12-17-18 at 16:14. Reason: Spelling and clarification
    The advice above is worth exactly what you paid for it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    5,912
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    The article was, in my opinion, pretty specific in its description of wasted concepts in training.

    The issue with "metrics" is that you either do them on a square range in a vacuum or you do them in a force on force type situation and time them there. The issue is, of course, the drills will immediately change as the moment you start introducing force on force you will instantly and organic see movement added.

    As such, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot want to look at metrics in the framework of tracking performance and believe those metrics (drills) are viable in real world applications. It just doesn't work that way.

    The middle ground is have metrics you shoot on a square range in vacuum once in a blue moon, I am talking about once every few months and have the overwhelming majority of your training exist in the combatives/accuracy (Dryfire) arena.

    That just doesn't happen now a days as people like to play games and the only way you "level up" or "get better" at the game is to play it the way everyone else does.

    Again, I am not looking to hash out this debate as every time I have tried to have it the threads get trolled to death by the pro-gaming types (and there are a lot more of them than not) and the concepts get lost.

    Another way to consider this - is there any real world statistical data to show that square range metrics done in a vacuum apply to real world scenario's ?
    Edit:
    You still havent explained how you think “real-world” performance should be measured.
    I think you did a decent job of explaining why the current method has flaws, but what is your proposed, better method of measuring performance?
    Last edited by MegademiC; 12-17-18 at 20:59.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    71
    Feedback Score
    0
    In the eighties, there was a cop who used a revolver in San Francisco. (I think.) The cop range he used used a ten-tin to collect the brass.

    During his one and only gun fight, he emptied his revolver, took a step back, dropped the cylinder and started looking at his feet.

    During the de-brief, they asked him what he was looking for, and he said he was looking for the ten-tin to drop his brass.

    Humans are creatures of habit. You'll fight the way you train. If you have no muzzle discipline in training, you won't suddenly grow some in a fight.

    Worship who you want, for the reasons you want, but your king has no clothes.
    "When I have your wounded." -- Major Charles L. Kelly, callsign "Dustoff", refusing to acknowledge that an L.Z. was too hot, moments before being killed by a single shot, July 1st, 1964.

    Black Lives Matter. All confederate symbols and monuments need to go.
    Proud to live in a sanctuary city.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,281
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    The article was, in my opinion, pretty specific in its description of wasted concepts in training.

    The issue with "metrics" is that you either do them on a square range in a vacuum or you do them in a force on force type situation and time them there. The issue is, of course, the drills will immediately change as the moment you start introducing force on force you will instantly and organic see movement added.
    I think there are different ways that folks use and think about metrics. Forget the competition arena and enter the realm of instruction.

    When you use the term metrics, I think of them as 'standards' that give you your driver's license to run the gun. As in 'you have to meet these standards before you can go forward to the next course' or ‘you have to meet these standards to graduate.’

    If the shooter has knowledge of what the standards are, the shooter can test themselves and determine for themselves whether: 'I need more work on clearing a failure to extract' or 'I need more work on transitioning from target to target' in order to meet the standard.

    The initial problem is how to establish realistic standards (metrics). A lot of times trainers just set the times based on their intuitive feel for what a good time should be. That isn't really defensible if retention of the employee is based on passing the standards. There are defensible ways to set standards – I could bore you to death if you want.

    Standards should be go/no. Years ago, Dr. Kenneth Cooper, who documented the benefits of doing aerobic exercise for maintaining and improving health, said who pioneered the benefits of doing aerobic exercise for maintaining and improving health, said ‘If you are running for more than twenty minutes, or more than three times a week, you are doing so for reasons other than health.’ In the same vein one might say ‘If you are focused on dramatically beating the standard time, you are doing it for something other than baseline weapons proficiency.’

    Speaking to your comment about timing standards (metrics) during force-on-force training, such a practice is not appropriate for true reality-based training, introduction of the stop watch and specific tasks to be conducted at specific moments detracts from the true purpose of force-on-force training which is to establish a positive outcome under stressful conditions in your ‘lizard brain.’


    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    Another way to consider this - is there any real world statistical data to show that square range metrics done in a vacuum apply to real world scenario's ?
    Well, yeah, most successful LE shootings. Up until the late 70’s virtually all LE training was done of square ranges, using sundial times, yet officers prevailed in shootings.

    Of course there have also been notable fails
    .
    Once during a ‘discussion’ about components of two different firearms training programs another rangemaster said ‘we teach our officers to fight with the pistol.’ The response by the other rangemaster was ‘the Air Force teaches their pilots to fight with their aircraft, but they teach them to fly the fvcker first.’

    Point being, mundane things such as square range training have their place in the development of gunfighting skills.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    “You are responsible for your actions, but the world doesn’t turn around you, so it’s important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.” - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South of Chicago
    Posts
    4,912
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jammer Six View Post
    In the eighties, there was a cop who used a revolver in San Francisco. (I think.) The cop range he used used a ten-tin to collect the brass.

    During his one and only gun fight, he emptied his revolver, took a step back, dropped the cylinder and started looking at his feet.

    During the de-brief, they asked him what he was looking for, and he said he was looking for the ten-tin to drop his brass.

    Humans are creatures of habit. You'll fight the way you train. If you have no muzzle discipline in training, you won't suddenly grow some in a fight.

    Worship who you want, for the reasons you want, but your king has no clothes.
    There is merit to what you are saying. I shot PPC matches with a K Frame revolver and carried an 8 shot 9mm service pistol at work. I fired over 15,000 rounds per year at PPC matches, closer to 20,000 rounds. During a service weapon qualification we had to shoot until the slide locked back, reload, then fire additional rounds. I fired my Model 39 until the slide locked back, transferred the pistol to my left hand like I would a revolver and instinctively reached for a speed loader to the right of my duty belt buckle. Once I realized I fouled up, I transferred the Model 39 back to my shooting hand, reloaded then fired the next 8 rounds in what seemed like well under 2 seconds. That made it a little tough to get accurate hits at 25 yards.

    From that point forward I shot PPC matches using a semi-automatic handgun. I normally cleaned a 48 round course and shot over 716 in a 72 round course with my K Frame and the match winner was determined by X count. My scores dropped a few points, but I was more interested in proficiency with a firearm like my service pistol. I wasn't going to let my ego get me killed at work.
    Last edited by T2C; 12-17-18 at 22:04.
    Train 2 Win

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •