Range as laboratory

[Cold]

I also see IPSC wizards go over to IDPA and fail to place well (most often blaming "all those rules" while somehow ignoring all those misses ). .

Really? Must be a FLA thing...

That does not go on here in GA, especially in ATL where our USPSA and IDPA activity is high. I bet the guys in AZ would say the same thing about that statement. If you shoot USPSA on any consistent level, IDPA should not be much trouble (other than the use of cover, reloading behind cover etc, which can be mental adjustment than anything).

What is more likely is your blowing that out of proportion OR you have guys talk a big game that really arnt "IPSC wizards" or whatever deconstructed term you want to use for Master/GrandMaster.

However IDPA to USPSA is a jump where some guys stumble a bit or fall into trouble. The two games are different in many respects but still involve the fundamentals. When we spoke on the phone I gave you invaluable insight into the games, especially 3 gun. If you need some insight into USPSA and IDPA from some competitors (I mean from wizards), I will gladly put you in touch with people from GA who can help you out there. Were spoiled here in A town I guess.

[rob_s]

I guess I also shouldn't be shoved that the thread had to turn into an IPSC vs IDPA thing either.

Uncle.

[Magsz]

Rob,

Im really surprised that you're saying this considering how interested you are in the minutiae. There's nothing wrong with your interest as you back it up with consistent shooting skill but there are alot of people out there that can recite ballistic tables, zeros, processes, procedures etc that simply cannot shoot.

Not to mention, some of these people simply cannot do anything under pressure.

I personally suck at IDPA, carbine matches and other organized shooting events. I want to renew my interest in these and get better but i simply cannot wrap my head around rules centered around guns beyond the basic safety rules. A little bit of force on force Airsoft training and you will realize in oh i dunno .000001 seconds that two shots does not stop a target. Yes, this is Airsoft and there is no trauma involved but one out of two misses is a 50% success or failure ratio and that one shot may not stop the threat.

There IS a distinction between gun fighting, running drills, being able to think and function under pressure and gaming.

Gaming can help with the functioning under pressure but after enough time on the clock you are desensitized to it.

Drills can help with the fundamentals but the technicians out there that run the drill over and over and over again just to get better at that particular drill are essentially wasting time without reinforcing good habits.

Gun fighting classes can teach a person how to react under pressure via an assailant out for their "blood" but they often times do not reinforce the fundamentals.

So long as the shooter is aware of what they are working on and are aware of the fact that being a well rounded firearms user is important, all of the above aspects of shooting are "ok".

When shooters stop pursuing different training regimens and stagnate into a routine, thats when its "bad".

Like with any competitive sport people will always look for that next 1% increase in performance even if its a placebo. The sixty bajillion "tactical" brakes are evidence of this. People want to be able to shoot faster, more accurately and efficiently but forget that the noodle humper attached to the gun is what controls it.

There should be a link in this thread to your "Go shoot the gun" thread as it follows the same theme. Too much time off of the range and not enough time on it. There's alot of time spent to think, ponder and plan on what we are going to spend our money on next in an effort to somehow improve the time that we actually spend shooting.

[Redmanfms]

Very good point and makes me think a bout rigging some kind of game caller (one that I can load my own noises into) and record gun shots. Then place said caller in a shoot house while students are clearing it.

Hmmm.....

Rob,

Typically on the square range, all targets are bad guys. So people get very used to just shooting at whatever is in front of them.

We have been using full color shoot/no shoot targets lately (specifically in shoot houses) and people quickly learn that they ACTUALLY have to look at the target and see what is in their hands.

The other thing that these full color targets do is suck the shooter in. Very few people have actually seen a real gun pointed at them and they become target fixated. Because of this, they tend to point shoot and SNATCH THE LIVING HELL out of the trigger. I have seen people MISS full size targets from 6ft away.



C4

I've seen training conducted using full-size 3-D foam targets with removable core hit areas (like a bow target) that were made "shoot/no-shoot" by addition of a very real-looking plastic or rubber weapon. Sometimes a knife or pistol, sometimes a long arm. No-shoot targets would sometimes have their arms extended hand out, and occasionally have something non-threatening in it. The results were alarming. Most shooters tended to fixate on strange things trying to determine if the target was a threat and make the decision to shoot. Total misses weren't uncommon. Failures to shoot weren't uncommon. Hits on no-shoots weren't uncommon. Initial run-throughs saw successful engagement and hit rates in the 60% range. It was probably the most realistic non-simunition training I've seen.

Another training scenario offered was one in which upon entrance to the room to be cleared the targets were arranged in such a way as to have a threat standing directly in front of a no-shoot target, but not in such a way as to obscure it. It was truly amazing how many trainees simply froze in place, presented and fired knowing over-penetration would kill or injure a no-shoot when the no-shoot could be taken out of the equation by taking two quick side steps.


Not even most simunition training takes human factors into account. Most have no-shoots standing or sitting about placidly. When I work as op-for for these shoots (for a local ERT) and am assigned a no-shoot position, I do things like scream and charge the officers begging not to get shot or jump out of my seat and attempt to retreat. I get shot a lot as a result.


Of course, the average firearms owner has neither the time nor the money to utilize either type of training, which makes me really wonder just how prepared even the most ardent tactical training attendee really is.

[UCFiveOh]

Maybe I've missed the point of the OP's post completely, or am out of my lane, but from a/my LEO perpective, the range IS the laboratory, and this is a good thing.

New holster/light/sight/etc...take it to the range and see if it will fail or meets expectations.

New tactics/style/method etc...take it to the range. Find out what works and what doesn't in a controlled environment as opposed to the street.

So, along the lines of the OP, running the drill as described with shoot/no shoot, house, etc. hopefully the shooters learned something MORE (about themselves and their gear) than standing on an X and shooting at an X (etc). If that's the case, mission accomplished, right?

[threeheadeddog]

While Rob started the thread this is not directed at him or anyone in perticular but something that I think about often.

I think that drills and ones performance in drills in many ways does accurately reflect their current skill level. While one drill wont be able to reveal everything a combination of drills that use static shooting and drills that involve moving when looked at together generally do. I am not tactical and do not even pretend to know how they apply there but as a pure shooting test drills are useful.

You really often can place someone's skills at shooting a pistol by simply running them through an El Prez drill. I have yet to see anyone run a sub 6 second run that doesnt diserve it. Truthfully even if you shoot a sub 6 second El Prez without targets(or targets and never hit a single one) you are displaying a pretty high level of skill in just the firearm handling involved(but through the drill and your absolute failure to hit the target you would see were you need to improve).

As an IDPA shooter I think that hands down the best part of IDPA is the classification standards. You really can see the skill of a shooter through that set of "drills". Now many will tell you that just because someone does well at the classifier does not mean that they will do well in a match, and that is correct. Of course a match involves a lot of extra rules and familiarity with the way the game is played, the classifier is just a simply test of ones capabilities.

I have just started shooting USPSA and am not yet classified, but it seems to me that the entire classification system in USPSA is nothing more than drills graded on a curve.

Now to tie this to the topic of using range time to test equipment. I dont see a real problem if you are doing this provided you are seeing results. There is no substitue for fundamentals, and anyone who has pursued shooting will always come back to this. You can also gain capabilities though through equipment. When you look at your scores and times from drills or otherwise and you see that your draws suck you need to acknowledge that you should put real time into practice, but if you are drawing from a pos nylon holster with a snap that is placed so that you could never get a proper grip on the handgun and unsnap the retention at the same time than acknowleding that equipment might/will help is just as honest.

You see it time and time again that people who should have pursued fundamentals and put their time into practice instead of overtime $$$ for the next doohicky are failing and not progressing as they should. You also see it over and over(especially with the "we are to tactical for that" IDPA crowd) that people use the KISS or "anti-gamer equipment" excuse to cover up their own ineffeciencies at a drill or inability to measure up. From a handgun perspective I swear if I hear one more idiot say that if they shot "mouse-fart" ammo through a 3k$ 2011 they could do that too, or that doing that with the 2011 and downloaded ammo doesnt count I will scream.

cliff notes version...there is really no difference between people who defend their equipment and its merits than those who defend their lack of equipment and its merits. They are both vested emotionally in their choices and often defend it without acknowledging the other sides advantages.

[p7fl]

Really? Must be a FLA thing...

More a south Florida thing with lots of ancient history that is hopefully ending as more new shooters come on line and learn about both sports.
To the OP original question, what I am seeing in Carbines is very close to what was going on in USPSA a decade + ago when the only active divisions were Open and Limited. Each match people would show up with new blasters to test theories or just push the envelope. It was not unusual to see 2 or 3 guns a match simply choke. This has really disappeared with the response to having a Production Division.
At Rob's match the shooters were enjoying testing changes or often just the visual appeal of their weapons. Just as many had KISS rifles that were very capable of being carried from the Match right to home defense.
The need to tinker and test is part of the DNA of competitive shooting.

[threeheadeddog]

I also recall that there is a large thread by a senior member here about a rather well tuned sbr that by all accounts runs rather well. I dont seem to recall anyone telling him that he should have reallocated his time/money into practice instead.

The simple fact is that tuning/parts can make guns run better. At one point I switched from x to y on handguns and just by that switch I saw my splits on drills drop from .19-.22 to a consistant .17-.18. It doesnt sound like much but it made a difference to me. I have shot other peoples guns and gotten .13 splits(with good hits on a the small round steel challange plates) though I was unwilling to invest in that perticular platform for various reasons.

This topic, to me, just helps to show how much well thougth out drills(maby some of the slightly longer ones that involve more manipulations), and competition are actually needed to be used as a bar to gauge yourself. A person can gauge there needs based on weather they are progressing as a shooter.

One thing I always find interesting is listening to people talk about ammo. Sometimes you will see that guy who is chasing the perfect load and tuning for his gun. He spends more time swapping springs/buffers/parts trying to get the nirvana balance to his pistol than actually practicing and you see it in his performance. Then there is the guy who gets an acceptable load and makes a ton of it so that he can practice for months without worring about ammo.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the guys who shoot only factory ammunition(usually wolf or WWB), and are vocal about how shooting anything reloaded is not in the spirit of defensive shooting and practice. They are quick to degrade higher performing shooters or defend there own incompetance yet they never acknowledge that WWB isnt defensive ammunition. Of course they also never acknowledge that the guy reloading shoots 2x as many rounds a year and is better practiced.

Its a two-edged sword

[Surf]

Been busy for the last several weeks, especially the past 10 days or so and much has been said here but I will throw in my opinions.

From my perspective I always consider the range and training as being the laboratory for pretty much everything, gear, weapons, ammo, tactics etc... When I say range I mean everything from flat one way ranges, to 360* shoothouses, to simulations and SIMS training. Pretty much everything gets vetted in this manner by getting wringed out and tested as thoroughly as we can conceive and/or devise.

Drills have very good merit in teaching specific skills that can be a part of the overall puzzle that completes a skilled shooter. Drills can be a good way to teach or isolate specific functions. This is a valuable method to include when training a shooter, no matter what their reasons for shooting. Fundamentals are King and are always visited at the onset of a training day. No amount of gear or gadgets is a substitute for sound fundamentals, this we all agree, however the right selection of gear, weapons and / or accessories can make a very good shooter even better.

Shoothouses are excellent. Pretty much the best you can get for live fire training. Photo realistic targets are excellent, combine them with 3D type of backers is better. 3D reactive targets with 3D weapons are even better. Auditory, visual and even olfactory stimulus within the shoot house is even better. We are lucky enough to have full and unlimited access to several such facilities with just about any imaginable sounds from sirens, to weapons, to screams to foreign language etc. Visuals from lighting effects, smoke, video, reactive 3d targets. Smells from excrement to dead bodies. I get to spend a lot of time in them, but these type of facilities are generally only afforded by certain Gov agencies or the military. The moral is being creative with what is available to each of us. I have found that the gaming community is very adept at being creative. Training should vary as much as we can permit given our training areas / ranges. For drills, we need a wide array of them and they need to be mixed up and not run too consistently for long periods of time. Realism or as close to it that we can get is also paramount.

Other than shooting competitive trap and skeet as a teen, I have not really been involved in the competitive shooting sports world. My past 21 years of training and experience is based in the defensive / counter sniper / combat / CQB shooting as opposed to gaming or competitive shooting. Only within the last 2-3 years have I really delved into what might be considered the classic competitive types of shooting drills. I will say that by having done so, I have improved my own skills and the skills of those that I teach by incorporating certain drills and extrapolating ways of isolating and honing certain skill sets that come from the competitive shooting drills and applying them to more traditional combative styles of shooting. Video and a timer can do wonders for a shooter. Often times showing a shooter a video of what they are doing speaks volumes. So much so, that we video everything from dry runs, to SIMS, to live fire on a flat range and in shoot houses. Video is also a great way to self teach provided you have the objectivity and teaching knowledge to be able to self evaluate.

As for the compensator and due to my normal indoor, team based shooting environment, I was NEVER a fan of them. So much so, that I even held the opinion that they were not suitable for any LE functions. Loved a good flash hider, but a compensator was out. Right up until now. One of my many job duties is with the T&E of weapons, gear, accessories, ammo etc, for possible procurement and use and I have quite a bit of experience here. I attempt to shit can everything I get my hands on. That is the way I look at all items that I come to test. Something needs to impress with high consistency over a long period of time or evolutions, under all situations we can think of, or it is gone. I don't care what flavor of the month some item may or may not be and like to find fault in items that are the current nutswingers gear du jour.

On that note, for the past 2-3 months I have been running the BattleComp. One on a 10.3" and one on a 14.5". I ran it throughout our last 10 week new guy program, with 5 good weeks of shooting, from basic all the way through our advanced combative shooting courses. Indoors, outdoors, night, day, rolling in dirt, you name it. This comp is the first that I find acceptable for my duty uses. NOT A NECESSITY by any means and NOT EVEN a huge advantage to most shooters in my application, but one that I do find to be acceptable. More important, the guys that I run it next to, around and over, find it acceptable. Take this FWIW but I NEVER thought I would run a comp on a duty weapon. I do now. It still almost pains me to say that.

[DocGKR]

Surf--excellent post, thank you! Fully concur on the BattleComp.