Simulator Experience

[lalakai]

went through 2 simulators, and more then anything, i believe it gave the range officer a chance to judge your reactions and decision making skills, rather then test your actual abilities in different situations.

for us, best training has been with the airsoft type guns. The recoil is pretty good and within 20-25 feet your trajectory is also very similiar. We've used them for trainings in felony stops, building searches, and quad trainings. Combined our quad training with local EMT's and even some of our kids that volunteered to be students. To add to the realism, we had several revolvers that were loaded with blanks, so that it was easier to track locations in the school. For some reason when i was a bad guy and was shot, the EMT's never checked me out........don't know why.

[ToddG]

I rarely if ever shoot good guy targets in say IDPA or in courses, etc as it's obvious who is who. This simulator had good guys and bad differing only by a badge on their belt or in their hand, and your eyes go right to the gun. Good learning experience there.

Simulators aren't (or shouldn't be) used as firearms skill training. They provide judgment problems, use of force/escalation challenges, etc. For most people, they also tend to induce more stress than live fire drills against paper, cardboard, & steel targets.

Regarding IDPA/IPSC no-shoots: It's not just a matter of the targets being so well identified, but the fact that there is no significant penalty for taking a fraction of a second to identify the target properly. You're never worried that one of the carboard dodecagons is going to kill you, so you're rarely so amped up that you launch rounds at one "just in case" before you see the hands, blue stripes, etc.

[ZDL]

Simulators aren't (or shouldn't be) used as firearms skill training. They provide judgment problems, use of force/escalation challenges, etc. For most people, they also tend to induce more stress than live fire drills against paper, cardboard, & steel targets.

Regarding IDPA/IPSC no-shoots: It's not just a matter of the targets being so well identified, but the fact that there is no significant penalty for taking a fraction of a second to identify the target properly. You're never worried that one of the carboard dodecagons is going to kill you, so you're rarely so amped up that you launch rounds at one "just in case" before you see the hands, blue stripes, etc.

I'm having a slow moment. Are you saying you do not think they are good shooting skill builders but useful in judgment assessment?

[ToddG]

ZDL -- Yes, that's what I'm saying.

One could argue that they have a certain value for teaching shooting skills, but personally I don't find it translating very well. Recoil is wrong, often times the laser designator (which is what registers shot placement) isn't properly zeroed, etc.

Shooting on a simulator is better than not shooting at all, but it doesn't come close to building hard skills as well as live fire mixed with a proper dry fire program. Though I could see incorporating the simulator into some (not all) of a dry fire program.

[HES]

And of course there's always Centerfolds Boston on 12 Lagrange St:

www.CenterfoldsBoston.com


Not that I would know anything about the place....

but of course, and not like Im gonna make a bee line for it or anything like that

[ZDL]

ZDL -- Yes, that's what I'm saying.

One could argue that they have a certain value for teaching shooting skills, but personally I don't find it translating very well. Recoil is wrong, often times the laser designator (which is what registers shot placement) isn't properly zeroed, etc.

Shooting on a simulator is better than not shooting at all, but it doesn't come close to building hard skills as well as live fire mixed with a proper dry fire program. Though I could see incorporating the simulator into some (not all) of a dry fire program.

No I agree. That's what I was saying in earlier posts. Just wanted to make sure my judgment was lining up with someones who is smarter than me.

Simunitions fall in the same category. They are extremely inaccurate from my experience and induce a more than normal amount of malfunctions. (maybe we have bad equipment?) They do serve to test your thinking in a dynamic way.

[WillBrink]

but of course, and not like Im gonna make a bee line for it or anything like that

Full of sin and ill repute. No idea why anyone would go there...

[GLOCKMASTER]

Simulators are good training tools for judgment training as long as the instructor/operator doesn't allow it to become a video game for the student. Once it has become a video game environment it loses it's training value.

Also as Todd said they can be used to assist with skill development but by no means should it replace good range time.

[R/Tdrvr]

Another great thing about this simulator. We all know BGs don't go down as we might want after our neat double tap to the chest. The computer will randomly select number of rnds it takes for them to drop, which really messes with your normal training patterns. One guy might go down with a single shot, but others might take 5-6rnds, which throws off your tempo. We know this is a fact of "real world" encounters but most still fall into a tempo in our shooting patterns, and this exposes that weakness for those (me!) who have not experienced that first hand. It also adds interesting decision making when dealing with tactical priority and or sequence of the targets.

In this simulator, women were always BGs. :-)

We used to set scenarios like that to simulate the BG wearing body armor (North Hollywood shootout) The only way to put them down was with a head shot, which could be hard when the BG is moving around.