Article: Training for Reality: Reloads and Situational Awareness

[thopkins22]

You can obviously ingrain training scars with bad practices while competing such as using firearms with a completely different manual of arms, or running reloads from a different place etc....

I don’t think anyone has argued that at all. But you can introduce equally damning scars with “reality based training” whatever that is to you. The actual damning thing that kid in the video did is faking the whole “follow the guy to the ground with the pistol thing.” But instead we’re going to damn him because he’s skinny enough to make a big AIWB holster work or because he has a fast reload(which does not look sped up at all to me...?) Also, it’s definitely not a competition holster because I’m not aware of any organization that allows competitors to play with an appendix holster.

I’ll say this, the top competitors in your state are faster and more proficient with firearms than the vast majority of SWAT officers in your state, and faster and more proficient than most SOF types. Does that equate more lethal or more effective than someone who trains to dominate other human beings with violent means? Obviously not. But you aren’t being made to make that choice. Nobody is saying that you’re better off competing than learning how to choke someone, or that you’re better off with a fast reload than you are from attaining a basic level of fitness. Nobody.

Instead this disdain for competition shooters appears to many as being super defensive without much merit.

“That guy is so much faster than me. Boo! Probably cause he’s playing a silly game and I’m out here training for the fight with my valuable time! Learning real killer shit you know?”

Except if we look at the statistics, that’s also super unlikely to ever come. And if it does, being able to deliver fast shots on target is what wins it...and “gaming” is a damn fine way to hone that ability, and yes fast reloads too. Not “the way” you’re certainly right about that, but if you value your time, I’d argue that it’s one of the most efficient ways to get dramatically better with a firearm.

I’d also say that with the exception of shotguns in 3-gun, reloads are not what separates the top shooters from the field, target to target transitions is where the time gets eaten up.

[Ron3]

Good articles.

My take-away's and thoughts on non-LE reloads:

-A consistent reload (not screwing it up) is more important than focusing on speed.

-Carrying one reload is likely insurance enough to fix a malfunction (or loss of mag in gun) or provide more rounds. Totally justifiable. (in regards to comfort) Carry two if you want but the chances of needing it are beyond extreme.

-Using time training to reload a revolver (it's a lot of time) while moving is better spent training to draw a second gun and focusing on shooting well.

-Dropping mags to the ground gets them dirty. Clean and inspect your magazines. Get extras to use as training mags for dropping to the ground and keep them separate from your carry mags. (I think we all know this)

-MOST BG's (even in groups) will flee once an armed citizen counter-attacks. MOST of the BG's that don't will flee when they are hit with a bullet.

-Carry what you like to carry, that you shoot well, and is reliable.

[Voodoo_Man]

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.’

I don't want to cherry pick topics, but the rest of your post I have already made responses to previously in the thread so I won't rehash them.

The true purpose of FoF is to put people in a deadly force confrontation without the deadly force, and there is only one reason why "standards" cannot exist in this arena and that is because the standards people love to shoot on the range don't have any place in reality.

Name a standard people shoot often at the range and you'll see it instantly be disregarded for movement in a FoF scenario. If we know, for a fact, that those drills mean nothing when training as realistically as possible, you have to wonder why we even consider square range drills a "thing" to begin with?

Beyond that, as I've stated, square range drills should be the blue moon type range activity and not the constantly sought after range day "training." If you go to the range 10 times, and 9 of those times you shoot drills the whole time you are there, you are setting yourself up for serious failure. Live fire drills should be a confirmation of what you already know and to help you move towards a specific type of personal development which everyone should strive for.

Shooting drills to get better at shooting drills is a pure gamer idea and has absolutely zero place in real world applicable training. Should we shoot drills at the range? Definitely, but not as a primary source of training, its something we should do to confirm where we are or to show us what deficiencies we have so that we can go and train those deficiencies. Competition is not designed to facilitate this type of mindset in training. It does the exact opposite by rewarding those who drill to be good at drills and not to be good at reality.

[ST911]

Speaking as an instructor, that picture shows a guy with no muzzle discipline. Makes his T shirt into a punchline, he's lacking the single most important safety skill.

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.

I liked hearing that people came back from Iraq and Afghanistan and said the NTC was harder. That's the way to train. You'll follow your training. (Which is yet another point against the picture.)

Worship who you want, for the reasons you want, but your king has no clothes.

Jammer Six- So that we can understand and assign value to your input, what are you an instructor of and who issues your credential? When/what was your last continuing education event? You are criticizing what is essentially the norm for more than a decade, and what is not only allowed but specifically taught and required in a number of programs. These include the NRA, FLETC, and a laundry list of instructors.

[Defaultmp3]

Also, it’s definitely not a competition holster because I’m not aware of any organization that allows competitors to play with an appendix holster.

AIWB is allowed in USPSA in limited, lim10, and open. Gabe White has a good article about his journey: http://www.gabewhitetraining.com/art...ndix-carriers/

[26 Inf]

The true purpose of FoF is to put people in a deadly force confrontation without the deadly force, and there is only one reason why "standards" cannot exist in this arena and that is because the standards people love to shoot on the range don't have any place in reality.

Yes, force on force does put people in force confrontations without the risk of serious injuries, but for what purpose?

One of the problems with force on force training (reality-based training) is that there are a lot of practitioners who don't fully understand the concept. I say this because at one time I was one of them.

Let me give you a quick example using a reload: I want to instill in the people I train the 'instinct' to keep moving to cover as they shoot, reload and continue firing. First I have to train them to reload. In order to determine whether they are ready to go to the next step, reloading on the move, I establish a standard by timing myself at 7/10ths as I draw fire two, reload and fire two, let's say the time I come up with over five runs averages 4.92, I round up to 5.00 and use this as my standard for locked back reload competency.

After the student has demonstrated the ability to meet the reload standard, movement to cover in and out is added, then movement diagonally in and out, then laterally left and right, with varying rounds in the magazine in the weapon in order to eliminate the 'fire one, reload, fire one' training scar.

The next step should be doing it live against a guy drawing an inert weapon, with the officer firing airsoft or sim rounds - this way the officer doesn't have to wear pro-gear, only the assailant. When the shooter is able to do this repeatedly, without loss of form, the next step is to cement the response by successfully performing it in an emotionally charged event.

So we set up a pedestrian approach scenario where as the officer approaches the pedestrian, the pedestrian suddenly draws a weapon. The response we want is for the officer to draw, while moving, engage while moving, reload while moving, engage if necessary, and get to cover.

If you tell the officer what to do beforehand, it becomes just another drill, without the emotional content. You also need to understand that the officer may do something like take an additional step before reloading, so if you were timing the reload, that would alter time. As long as the officer is able to perform the tasks you design the scenario to measure: react, draw while moving, engage while moving, reload, and engage further if necessary while moving to cover, you are good to go.

Additionally, I believe you should never allow the officer to fail, if the officer starts going off the rails, I stop the scenario, use Socratic questioning to get them on the right track, then reset the scenario with a different trigger point. Sometimes it takes several resets in order to get the student through the scenario. If that is the case, they need to do a similar follow-on scenario the next day.

I hope that this serves to illustrate my point that timing things such as the draw, or splits during a reload, are not practical in focused FonF/RBT scenarios. I do find that timing such things during training as diagnostic tools has value.

I also agree you can go too far, as in the video you posted, or even with the FAST drill.

JMO

[Voodoo_Man]

Yes, force on force does put people in force confrontations without the risk of serious injuries, but for what purpose?

One of the problems with force on force training (reality-based training) is that there are a lot of practitioners who don't fully understand the concept. I say this because at one time I was one of them.

Let me give you a quick example using a reload: I want to instill in the people I train the 'instinct' to keep moving to cover as they shoot, reload and continue firing. First I have to train them to reload. In order to determine whether they are ready to go to the next step, reloading on the move, I establish a standard by timing myself at 7/10ths as I draw fire two, reload and fire two, let's say the time I come up with over five runs averages 4.92, I round up to 5.00 and use this as my standard for locked back reload competency.

After the student has demonstrated the ability to meet the reload standard, movement to cover in and out is added, then movement diagonally in and out, then laterally left and right, with varying rounds in the magazine in the weapon in order to eliminate the 'fire one, reload, fire one' training scar.

The next step should be doing it live against a guy drawing an inert weapon, with the officer firing airsoft or sim rounds - this way the officer doesn't have to wear pro-gear, only the assailant. When the shooter is able to do this repeatedly, without loss of form, the next step is to cement the response by successfully performing it in an emotionally charged event.

So we set up a pedestrian approach scenario where as the officer approaches the pedestrian, the pedestrian suddenly draws a weapon. The response we want is for the officer to draw, while moving, engage while moving, reload while moving, engage if necessary, and get to cover.

If you tell the officer what to do beforehand, it becomes just another drill, without the emotional content. You also need to understand that the officer may do something like take an additional step before reloading, so if you were timing the reload, that would alter time. As long as the officer is able to perform the tasks you design the scenario to measure: react, draw while moving, engage while moving, reload, and engage further if necessary while moving to cover, you are good to go.

Additionally, I believe you should never allow the officer to fail, if the officer starts going off the rails, I stop the scenario, use Socratic questioning to get them on the right track, then reset the scenario with a different trigger point. Sometimes it takes several resets in order to get the student through the scenario. If that is the case, they need to do a similar follow-on scenario the next day.

I hope that this serves to illustrate my point that timing things such as the draw, or splits during a reload, are not practical in focused FonF/RBT scenarios. I do find that timing such things during training as diagnostic tools has value.

I also agree you can go too far, as in the video you posted, or even with the FAST drill.

JMO

You sort of made my point for me in terms of FoF and running drills.

First and foremost, just because instructors (especially in LE type "train the trainer" situations) don't understand how to properly use FoF that doesn't in anyway, shape or form, invalidate it as a highly effective training tool. Vastly outweighing anything competition or training for competition can ever accomplish or provide, this is extremely applicable and true for LE.

I won't get into exactly how to install a correct response (a combat reload in this case) over a public forum but if you ever catch me at a class or show/event don't hesitate to ask.

[danattyfatty]

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.

Just curious. Are you the same “Trophy Husband” that got banned a few weeks back from MDShooters? I do see some parallels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[T2C]

I am a firm believer in both live fire training AND Force on Force training. Force on Force training with Simmunitions will often reveal deficiencies in a person's ability to react to a dynamic situation. I have seen people who could shoot a high Master score on a qualification course have their lunch handed to them by a person who shoots lower scores.

[26 Inf]

I am a firm believer in both live fire training AND Force on Force training. Force on Force training with Simmunitions will often reveal deficiencies in a person's ability to react to a dynamic situation. I have seen people who could shoot a high Master score on a qualification course have their lunch handed to them by a person who shoots lower scores.

So are you doing training, or playing army with Sims to see who wins? There is a difference.