< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.  (Read 4557 times)

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« on: May 22, 2013, 01:39:00 PM »
sjwsti said something interesting a little while ago in a different thread:
Quote
In the classic book “Shooting to Live” By W.E. Fairbairn three elements were required to win in a gun fight.

1.Extreme Speed in both drawing and firing
2.Instinctive as opposed to deliberate aim
3.Practice under circumstance which approximate as nearly as possible to actual gun fighting

Then later, talking about a particular type of course, sjwsti says:
Quote
"Your success or failure wont be decided by a shot timer or how many "A" zone hits you make. This is pass/fail."
(He says that meaning success or failure in that particular class, to keep this in context.)


…so I thought I'd speak to all four of those points, just for the sake of discussion.

Quick Comment First:  "Winning" a gun fight means using a firearm in a lethal-force-level self-defense situation in such a way that you stop the attacker from harming you.  There is an assumption (1) that you have to shoot them for this to occur.

Assumption (1):  Oddly enough, most of the time you DON'T have to shoot them for this to occur.  If you read reports of actual self-defense situations, in a vast majority of them no shots were fired.  Instead, the attacker saw the firearm, and then took off.  That was it.

This isn't meant as a comment that just having a gun will keep you safe---it was merely a comment that just because you draw the gun doesn't mean you have to shoot someone down.  You should certainly be prepared to do so--but you shouldn't automatically do so.

Anyway, point being that the following discussion is based on actually having to shoot the gun at people who are trying to kill you, and succeeding in keeping yourself alive.

Moving to the actual points:

1) Extreme Speed in both drawing and firing

You have to have skill with the firearm.  You have to be able to get to the gun, draw the gun, get the gun on target, and keep shots going quickly.  If you can't, chances are you won't have a chance to use the gun in the first place. 

How do you build skill?  Practice.  Standards.  A timer, and using it to push yourself.  Analysis of your movement, optimization of your technique.  More practice.  Having a reason to get better, having something to use to measure your skill level.

You'll note that for many parts of the above paragraph, "competition" is a great way to do it. 

A typical local Steel Challenge match will cause you to draw, on the clock, 30 times for score.  Each time you draw you will be forced to draw and shoot as fast as you can do so accurately on five steel targets.  You will get your own scores, you will be compared to other people, and the target sizes, shapes, and distances will vary.

A timer, standards, having a reason to get better, and having something to use to measure your skill level? All of those things = "Building Extreme Speed in both drawing and firing."

If, in a Steel Challenge match, you can draw and hit a 12" round target at 10 yards in 1.0 seconds, and then transition to four more targets at varying distances and hit them all (off the draw) in three seconds, then you have a pretty good idea that your speed is pretty darn good. 

Without said competition---how good is "good"? How fast is "fast"?  If you want to get better, to get competent, you are going to need some external measurement of your skills.  So, you'd better be able to find some standards to use for comparison.  Otherwise, you might think you really ARE fast---but may be very, very wrong.

Now, competitions aren't practice--they are tests.  So you still have to go out and practice on your own, using the equipment that you plan on using if you are ever in a gunfight.  But in addition to practicing, you need to test yourself.  And a Steel Challenge match is a great way to do that for point #1.

2.Instinctive as opposed to deliberate aim

It is interesting how things change over time---because we DON'T think this anymore.  Back when Fairbairn was teaching with Sykes, this was how it was taught, and for the types of shooting they were doing (using a single-hand, point-shoulder technique) this was a vast improvement over their student's prior abilities.

However, these days we try to teach people to use that bump on the front of the gun for aiming purposes.  It is certainly true that we want gun handling to be practiced to the point of being instinctive---but we still want people to use the sights instead of aiming by using The Force.    This doesn't mean bulls-eye aiming practice, so taking "deliberate aim" to mean "bulls-eye slow fire" isn't correct.  We do, however, want to deliberately use the front sight to the degree necessary for the situation.

3.Practice under circumstance which approximate as nearly as possible to actual gun fighting

While I certainly agree that this is MUCH to be desired, and will do a significantly amount to increase the ability of the student to survive a gun fight---I don't think this is required.  (Which was the original statement.)

Because it isn't required.  Hundreds (thousands, really) of people defend themselves each year with handguns, using weapons successfully in their own defense, without ever having had training or practice of this sort. 

So---required is putting it a bit strongly.

That being said, it is certainly true that stress training, force-on-force training, and scenario training (which can incorporate versions of the prior two) will make a huge difference in a person's ability to effectively act in their own defense.  (Assuming said training is actually valid, appropriate, and relevant.) 

Under stress, most people act differently.  Physically, mentally, and emotionally, stress makes a difference in your efficacy level.  And since most people have never actually been in a self-defense situation, training that simulates what really happens gives people information and understanding that will make a difference.  (Many people freeze when confronted with something outside of their experience.  As such, self-defense is one of those areas where tough training WILL make a huge difference in your ability to act.)

I fully agree that everyone interested in self-defense should take classes that include stress inoculation, force-on-force, and scenario training.  It can be an eye-opening experience.  (And brief advertisement:  several of us around here hold classes that include these things.)

Lastly, regarding a force-on-force class:

4) Your success or failure won't be decided by a shot timer or how many "A" zone hits you make. This is pass/fail.

The phrasing here interests me, because it is discussing how in that realistic class, "realism" seems to mean something different than getting shots on target quickly and accurately.

Either that, or it is just something to say that is meaningless, because if getting shots on target quickly and accurately is still important, then it just means they are using different things to measure the speed and accuracy.  The students still need to be fast and accurate, they just aren't using a timer to measure speed, or a defined spot on a cardboard target to measure accuracy. 

Why make a distinction, unless you are trying to disparage something else?

For example, several years ago I took a class at the Bullet Hole, where the instructor was very proud (and justly so) in having passed the standards for the various levels of the Strategos courses.  As part of that particular class, we were told of one particular standard---which was about shooting an index card a certain number of times within a certain time limit.

Now, there were other parts to the standard, which included some remedial action and a reload--but the operative measured parts were getting hits on a small target in a certain amount of time.

In other words---hitting a defined A-zone (however you want to define "A") while on a timer.  And yet---I hear comments about how that sort of thing (for example, in USPSA Action Pistol shooting) somehow decreases your ability to defend yourself.

It is certainly true that in most force-on-force classes, there is no timer and you don't draw little A-zones on people with a Sharpie.  However, this doesn't change the fact that the class still requires hits on specific targets at speed---they just happening to be using different scales to measure success. 

But they are still measuring the same things.  As such, disparaging practicing speed and accuracy using a timer and defined "acceptable hit" zones seems odd.  After all, the point of practice is to get faster and more accurate, yes?  As such, we need defined spots and a timer to measure our speed and accuracy.

In a force-on-force situation, the "timer" is the reactions of your assailant.  The "A-zone" is the vital zones of the assailant, into which you need to put multiple rounds.



What are my overall points?

1) Speed and accuracy is incredibly important.  There are a lot of ways to practice speed and accuracy, and testing yourself (or at least measuring your ability compared to some external standard) is important if you are actually trying to get better.

2) Stress/Force-on-Force/Scenario training can make a huge difference in your ability to handle self-defense situations.  While saying it is "required" is factually incorrect, it is certainly true that people interested in learning self-defense should indeed participate in relevant, realistic scenario training.

3) There are a lot of ways to practice gun handling skills, shooting skills, tactical skills, and self-defense skills.  Those four areas are not identical, though there is significant overlap in parts.  People interested in actually being able to defend themselves should train all areas, and as such, find ways to make such training, practicing, and tests interesting for themselves.

4) In the end, the shooting part of the skills tests will come down to speed and accuracy.  And there are a lot of ways to measure and test your level for those two skills.
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline bullit

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2013, 02:25:42 PM »
I don't have a clue how you could do this other than ATTEMPT a long-term RETROSPECTIVE study....but in light of all the tactical training, schools of gun fight theory, how to shoot, books, opinions, etc etc ad nauseum.....it would be interesting to know how many of the self defense gun fight survivors (not including LEOs/military) have never participated, read or otherwise been 'indoctrinated" by the information out there being espoused.  An example I think of is the "Armed Citizen" column in the NRA magazine.  I dare say a majority of those individuals have NO background in all of this "theory" or are familiar with "Dynamic Critical Incidents"/"Combat Focus Training".  This would be compared to those who are (or think they are) as student of the gun.
Now to qualify my thoughts I am STRONG promoter, student and participant in training. 

Offline Lorimor

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: Platte County
  • Posts: 1077
  • Relay 2
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2013, 07:59:55 PM »
I don't have a clue how you could do this other than ATTEMPT a long-term RETROSPECTIVE study....but in light of all the tactical training, schools of gun fight theory, how to shoot, books, opinions, etc etc ad nauseum.....it would be interesting to know how many of the self defense gun fight survivors (not including LEOs/military) have never participated, read or otherwise been 'indoctrinated" by the information out there being espoused.  An example I think of is the "Armed Citizen" column in the NRA magazine.  I dare say a majority of those individuals have NO background in all of this "theory" or are familiar with "Dynamic Critical Incidents"/"Combat Focus Training".  This would be compared to those who are (or think they are) as student of the gun.
Now to qualify my thoughts I am STRONG promoter, student and participant in training. 

Not that I can prove anything one way or the other, but I'm thinking the fact that those who have received GOOD self-defense training are less likely to ever use a weapon.  Situational awareness has always been stressed in every good course I've attended.  Therefore, the average permit holder is more aware of their surroundings than the average Joe.

Then too, permit holders, i.e., "trained folk" make up a very small percentage of the US population. 
"It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed." – Rory Miller

Offline sjwsti

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 541
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2013, 08:18:52 PM »
Someone on this forum once said that to say anything bad regarding gun games that you either "had not done it", "weren't any good at it" or "hadn't  really thought about it". Well I did it, was pretty successful at it and I have put a lot of thought into it. And when I came to a point were I realized that my time and money could be better spent elsewere I wasn't so emotionally involved that I couldn't walk away.

Competition shooting is fun and is a great way to learn fundamentals. But it isn't self defense training. And if you regularly carry a gun, once you have learned those fundamentals, your time and money can be put to better use if you want to increase your chances of living through a violent encounter.

I will attempt to address what I feel are the important points as simply as possible.

1) Extreme Speed in both drawing and firing

"How do you build skill?  Practice.  Standards.  A timer"

- Practice? Agreed. Standards? Who`s standards? And what does meeting them really mean? Show me the evidence that a person who can "draw and hit a 12" round target at 10 yards in 1.0 second" has an increased chance of winning a fight than someone who can only do it in 3. I simply tell my students to be as fast as they can. That is something that can be practiced at home and I agree that a timer is helpful in that it will help you track your own progress. 

"A typical local Steel Challenge match will cause you to draw, on the clock, 30 times for score."

- Thats great practice for the next steel challenge match. How many shooters shoot with their EDC gear, gun and from concealment? IMO those 30 reps would be better spent at home with your EDC gear and that timer.

2.Instinctive as opposed to deliberate aim

This exact subject came up recently on another forum, and since my fingers are already getting tired, I will let my good buddy Trevor address this one. To see the original go to the High Threat Systems Facebook page. (Emphasis added is mine)

4 KEY PREMISES FOR POLICE SHOOTINGS

In response to numerous comments about reality-stress-behavior based marksmanship on linkedin.com (firearms instructors group), many of which promote a nearly marksmanship only method of training and evaluation:

Have you read any of the material (Applegate, Siddle) concerning survival stress and shooting? And, if you have read it, do you ...

a. chose to simply ignore it
b. disagree with it
c. disbelieve it is important

I totally agree that hitting the bad guy is important and should be a major focus of training, and I equally believe that it is only one piece of the puzzle.

I am well aware of the opinions of various instructors and organizations. Some of the instructors are incredibly talented operators with near heroic histories. This does not automatically mean they know what is best in the context of your most likely encounters. Tier One operators who train people based on tier one principles, when those people do not have tier one resources or abilities, frequently do a disservice to those operators.

I have the opportunity to frequently train and operate with the best under a variety of conditions. I did not start out with the beliefs I now have and I assure you I have a solid grasp of what is traditionally taught. I have come to the conclusion that most firearms training is simply wasted range based marksmanship without consideration for the effects of stress or use of context for when the skills can be accessed.

You have to teach something and have some basic premises and conclusions based on more than words and anecdotes. What do you base your beliefs on? Where is the evidence that would pass basic scrutiny. If it is not available, why is that? It should be easily reproducible. The results should be seen on video.

Trying to out-train human nature is nearly impossible with the limited training even expert police officers and most operators have available. Human nature often makes a lot of sense and can be used to increase survivability. There is a time to push past instincts and drill intuition or deliberate actions, but the grey area between those situations is very rarely taught.

Here are some of my basic premises from 20+ years of being in harms way as a street cop, SWAT cop, and combat veteran and member of the United States Army Special Forces. Also someone who has lost several co-workers including my police partner who was murdered on duty by gunfire. I will put my enthusiasm and concern against anyone's. It sickens me as well when instructors focus on their dogmatic beliefs and cults of personality without being able to provide concrete evidence for what they do. I am not saying that specifically about you; but for other instructors, if the shoe fits...

Here are some core police shooting premises:

1. Most self defense shootings are reactionary, close range, high stress, and often complex events
2. During these (reactionary, close range, high stress) events, officers and operators will most often not use their sights, despite any type and level of training

3. During these events, officers will have a gun pointed at them or firing on them first. In this case, they almost always resort to defensive measures as a survival response first
4. Given sufficient training, officers and. operators will be able to fully access their sights, but only with time, anticipation, and/or lower levels of threat- most often when the suspect is not oriented on or shooting at them first, or when they have already located a threat and have made a deliberate decision to engage the threat with aimed gunfireThis is significantly more rare than the previously discussed situations.

Studies and resources for the above points:

Point 1: Google"
"What Applegate Said"
"Shooting Distance and Survival"
"NYPD SOP 9 Shooting Data"

Point 2:
"Why its difficult to use sights under duress"
Scientific and Test Data to Support Point Shooting

Point 3:
Force Science Reaction Time Study
Watch any large number of police shootings

Point 4:
watch use of force videos and search for the above articles

If you disagree, show me the money. (video, study, reproducible evidence gathered during realistic stress based training)

My challenge has been clear for years and can be found in several posts. Not one anti-point shooting person has ever been able to provide a meaningful, documented account of what they believe. Show me the study, show me the science, show me the clear video results that are based on real world situations and not range based gymnastics. Don't provide a few anecdotes or examples based on what somebody said. Reproduce it and produce it with certainty.

I can repeatedly and consistently get even the most avid and competitive aimed fire shooters to point shoot under specific situations. Is there anyone who can repeatedly train large numbers of people to shoot with sights under close range, reactive, high stress situations?

Empiricism not dogma.


3.Practice under circumstance which approximate as nearly as possible to actual gun fighting

So you say its a good idea, but not really mandatory for success? I cant argue that it should be mandatory but there is actual evidence that proves it increases success, unlike shooting steel plates.

Lets wrap this up.

Want to become a better fighter?
- Build a solid foundation in the fundamentals of sighted and unsighted shooting
- Practice basic combatives
- Range drills. Starting at a very easy level and progressing to very complex.
- Reality based training. Participate in properly run force on force drills, putting it all together in context, working all the physical and mental skills in real time.

- Shawn
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 08:21:31 PM by sjwsti »
"It's not what you know that will get you into trouble; it's what you know that isn't true"

www.88tactical.com

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2013, 10:36:11 PM »
Interesting discussion!

Until this spring I hadn't shot a firearm since the last half of the 1970s.  Before that I shot both rifles, shotguns and handguns ... a lot.  Interestingly, I began shooting with a Daisy BB gun and shot thousands and thousands of rounds through it.  It was like part of my body.   I just read some Applegate references and realized that I had taught myself instinctive shooting with that BB gun.   I "pointed" the rifle with my index finger and pulled the trigger with my 2nd finger.  I'm sad to say so today, but back then I shot an unknown number of sparrows and other birds, most of them with headshots, some out of the air.  When I upgraded to my Sheridan Bluestreak I continued shooting that way but also mastered precision target shooting, which I found to  be a lot of fun and am looking forward to picking that sport up again using a .22 rifle.

During the qualifying shooting for my CHP I fired 150 rounds at a man-size target at 1, 5, 7 and 21 yards.  I was nervous and stressed, but at my age I've found that I have a slight hand shake, stressed or not.  The first couple of rounds I tried to hold a sight picture but I wasn't quick or steady enough and I'd shake away from the center of mass before I squeezed off the round.   Old habits kicked in and I subconsciously started using instinctive shooting, but using the index finger instead of the 2nd finger to pull the trigger.  I stopped thinking about a sight picture or squeezing the trigger and just focused on the center of mass instead, and snapped the trigger.  I never realized that I hadn't been using the sights until all the shooting was over.

All 150 shots hit the man-target.  All but one were inside the  perimeter line and half of them in that center-of-mass circle.  The one outside the line, which was my first shot,  was in the right brachial complex, which happened to be a fatal wound in a swat team shooting I was asked to investigate.  What made my grouping tighter was a tighter grip on my Nano, which lined up the second shot more quickly.  The tighter grip also brought the FTE's to an end.

One of the links sited above gave statistics on officers  killed in the line of duty.  It turns out that 86-90% were killed at or under 20 feet!  Seven yards.  That explains why the CHP training focused on shooting between face-to-face and 21 yards.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 09:29:33 AM by GreyGeek »

Offline bullit

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2013, 08:11:07 AM »
Not that I can prove anything one way or the other, but I'm thinking the fact that those who have received GOOD self-defense training are less likely to ever use a weapon.  Situational awareness has always been stressed in every good course I've attended.  Therefore, the average permit holder is more aware of their surroundings than the average Joe.


I absolutely think you are spot on there....

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2013, 12:46:26 PM »
Someone on this forum once said that to say anything bad regarding gun games that you either "had not done it", "weren't any good at it" or "hadn't  really thought about it".

Actually, that was a quote from an article that was posted on this forum.

Quote
Well I did it, was pretty successful at it and I have put a lot of thought into it. And when I came to a point were I realized that my time and money could be better spent elsewere I wasn't so emotionally involved that I couldn't walk away.

You've said this a number of times, and I've let it go, but since you keep saying it as support for your commentary about competition, I'm going to go ahead and respond.

I'm curious as to where your contention comes from that you were "pretty good at it."  In USPSA records, you have only 10 classifier scores, 8 of which came from only two matches, and one of which came from a single major match back in 2001. 

That's odd, because ENGC offers a classifier stage just about every other month, plus a special classifier match (with between 4 and 6 classifier stages) every year.  Plus, almost every major match also counts as a classifier, AND often includes a classifier stage---which means that if you were shooting many local matches, or pretty much any other major match, you'd have many more classifier scores.  As a comparison, in 2009 through 2011 (a three year period), I added 40 classifier scores to my records, and that was from going to one local match per month at most (I missed several each year) plus a couple of major matches each year.   You have 10 total, from a similar three-year period. 

I note that you were only a member of USPSA for three years, from 4/13/01 to 4/30/05.

Your classifier history shows that in 2001, you shot a special classifier match one month in Open division and made B-class with a 68% (B class goes from 60 to 75 percent).  Looking at the match data from 2004 and 2005 in ENGC, I can't find any record that you shot any of the local official club matches.  And you participated in one major match in Open, in 2001, in which you got 45th out of 103 shooters, with 66% of the winner's score in that division.

There is no record of you participating in any other major match.   So, I'm curious as to what part of that makes you think you were "pretty successful" from a competition standpoint?  Were you shooting non-club local matches and beating local guys?  Because B-class, while perfectly good, isn't "successful" from a competition standpoint, and you have no major match finishes that are either.  At the Area 5 competition in 2001, you weren't even in the top three for your class, much less toward the top of your division.

Your only other classifier records come from 2004, in which you switched to Production division (the stock pistol division, which is the one most likely to be similar to carry/duty firearms) and shot another special classifier match, in which you barely made C-class with a 40.3% for that match.  (The line between D class and C class is 40%.)  Since you had one Production classifier from 2001, your ending classification percentage was 45% or so, but your match performance in 2004 was barely C-class.

There is nothing at all wrong with shooting C-class.  Or D-class.  Or any particular class.  Nor is there anything wrong with shooting local matches and no major matches.  However, if someone's contention is that they were successful at competition shooting, but their match record doesn't show anything like it, it makes me wonder.

Did you also shoot IDPA or something?  I don't recall there being any official IDPA matches around here, though.

So:  You contend that your knowledge of competition shooting was sufficient to have a solid grasp and understanding of the sport, and that your success was such that your knowledge is indeed valid. 

Where were you successful in the sport?   And since you apparently only shot Open for most of your time in USPSA, how does that give you any information about shooting regular guns such as are used in Production division?

(Classifier scores are a matter of easily-searched public record, as are match results from both major matches, and reported local matches, by the way.   Anyone can check my scores, for example---which is why I certainly don't say that I'm anything resembling a national contender.)

Quote
Competition shooting is fun and is a great way to learn fundamentals. But it isn't self defense training. And if you regularly carry a gun, once you have learned those fundamentals, your time and money can be put to better use if you want to increase your chances of living through a violent encounter.

Of course competition isn't self-defense training.  And that has never been any sort of contention, so using it in an argument is a strawman, at best.

I don't actually agree that competition shooting is a "great way to learn fundamentals."  Shooting competition matches is not practice.  However, shooting competition matches is a great way to test shooting skills (which of course include fundamentals). 

You say that "once you have learned those fundamentals" ---and yet, the one thing that we know is that most people have NOT learned their fundamentals.  Matter of fact, don't you say that in your advanced pistol class?  That the main problem most people have is that they can't hit what they are aiming at in the first place?

In other words, that most people don't have good fundamentals? 

I also note that many people, once they think they have "good fundamentals," then start practicing what they think are "advanced techniques" and ignore their fundamentals, which is a bad thing.  The best shooters in the world continually go back and work on the basic fundamentals. 

So---if people don't normally have good fundamentals, and good shooters tend to revisit the fundamentals often, and competition is a good way to test fundamentals:  where, exactly, is it a bad thing to do competition shooting?

You said also: 
Quote
...your time and money can be put to better use if you want to increase your chances of living through a violent encounter

This assumes a number of things.

1) That people will actually practice on their own without any specific given goal or reward.  Research shows that most people simply won't do this.
2) That people actually KNOW what they should be practicing.  Any competitor watching new shooters, and any instructor in a shooting skills class, knows that most people DON'T know what they are bad at--and tend to have over-inflated views of their skill level.
3a) That people have such a limited amount of time and money that they can't practice on their own, take classes occasionally, and still participate in a shooting competition every once in awhile.  OR
3b) That people have enough money to actually take serious classes frequently, instead of simply paying $15 for a match once in awhile, in addition to practicing.
...and neither of those cases make much logical sense.

It also assumes that the only reason people work with a firearm is to increase their chances of living through a violent encounter.  Handy thing about shooting competitions---it tests your shooting skills, gives you feedback on what you need to work on, gives you a bit of stress that you can't get elsewhere, has you try things that you probably wouldn't think of on your own, costs only about $20 at most, AND is a lot of fun.

Seems to be a lot of things about it that are useful.

Quote
I will attempt to address what I feel are the important points as simply as possible.

1) Extreme Speed in both drawing and firing

"How do you build skill?  Practice.  Standards.  A timer"

- Practice? Agreed. Standards? Who`s standards? And what does meeting them really mean? Show me the evidence that a person who can "draw and hit a 12" round target at 10 yards in 1.0 second" has an increased chance of winning a fight than someone who can only do it in 3. I simply tell my students to be as fast as they can. That is something that can be practiced at home and I agree that a timer is helpful in that it will help you track your own progress. 

Whose standards?  Larry Vickers?  Jack Leuba?  Frank Proctor?  Mike Seeklander?  Kyle Defoors?  The internet is full of standards, and you don't have to believe them all to still use them to work on specifics.

Or if you don't like those, how about the standards assumed by KS, NE, IA, etc, for police officers for their yearly firearms qualifications?  Those basic, really simple standards that nonetheless some people have trouble passing?

Show you information that 3 seconds is too long, and that a draw of 1 second will be better?  Well, other than the logic based on knowing 1) most self-defense situations occur extremely quickly and 2) most self-defense situations occur at close range, and so taking three times as long to get the gun out is a bad thing, how about:

Bill Rogers, who defines time in a gunfight in terms of how many shots the bad guys can get off, based on the average of .25 seconds per shot--so that giving the bad guy time to get off 8 extra shots probably is bad;

Or maybe we can discuss it with Jack Tueller, knowing that on average, a human being can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, so that means that a normal human being can cover almost 15 yards in 3 seconds, which means that since most self-defense situations occur at close range, if your draw is 3 seconds you'd better not try drawing and instead should learn some empty-hand self-defense;

Or perhaps we can again just take a look at the KS law enforcement standards in which the basic expectation is that a LEO, from a standard retention holster, can draw and fire three rounds on target in 3 seconds.  (That is the par time for the first two strings of fire of their qualification.);

Or a whole host of other people.  If someone has a concealed draw of 3 seconds in one of my CCW or defensive tactics class, as an instructor, I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I didn't tell them that 1) they needed to cut their draw time down significantly because there just isn't that much TIME in most self-defense situations, and 2) until their draw time is cut down, they need to know how to make other defensive choices and when to make them because if their hands are tied up trying to draw, they aren't going to be very good at stopping offensive techniques from an attacker. 

I know that if you have two people with the same accuracy level, but one has a draw time 1/3 of the other, in the same self-defense situation the one with the faster draw is going to have a greater chance of keeping themselves safe. 

Does that mean everyone needs to have a 1-second draw?  No.  It does mean that very slow draws are a self-defense weakness.  And it means that people need to know their draw speed under stress (with or without surprise) so that they can make the decisions applicable to the situation at hand.

Quote
"A typical local Steel Challenge match will cause you to draw, on the clock, 30 times for score."

- Thats great practice for the next steel challenge match. How many shooters shoot with their EDC gear, gun and from concealment? IMO those 30 reps would be better spent at home with your EDC gear and that timer.

Really?  So, when you are at home with your EDC gear and a timer, you put the same amount of stress on yourself as in a match?  That practicing reps on your own has the same stress level as knowing you have only one shot at doing it right, that people are watching, that your competitors are seeing how you are doing?

Again, you seem to think that shooting matches equates with practice, and it doesn't.  A match is a test.  You shoot a match every once in awhile, to give yourself some stress and something different to do, to take yourself out of your comfortable practice zone, to force yourself to do it the one time it counts.

You should ALSO practice with your EDC at home.  But you should also do a match every once in awhile, or you'll think that your practice equates to reality under stress.  Matches aren't like someone trying to kill you---but there is some stress there, and that makes it a more effective test than simply giving yourself a goal at home and running through some reps.

Oh---if you think that a match is good practice for another match, then we have a very different concept of "practice."  And there isn't anything stopping people from shooting with their EDC gear, though Steel Challenge doesn't allow concealment. 

And you can't argue that Steel Challenge teaches you bad habits---because the entire thing tests the shooting fundamentals of draw, trigger control and sight picture, and transitions. 

Quote
2.Instinctive as opposed to deliberate aim

This exact subject came up recently on another forum, and since my fingers are already getting tired, I will let my good buddy Trevor address this one.

Is this the guy who said he is fine with the government instituting mandatory training for people who want to own a gun?  I'll still read it, but someone who thinks that way probably has a significantly different decision-making process than I do.

Quote
To see the original go to the High Threat Systems Facebook page. (Emphasis added is mine)

[snip this, because it is long and anyone can read it in the post above]


Looking at it, basically (tell me if I'm wrong here), his contention is based on Applegate and NYPD data, Force Science studies, and lots of cop videos and reports, yes?

So:

1) We don't teach the mechanics of shooting the way Applegate did---we know more about effective shooting, so we don't even hold the gun the same way.  As such, saying that "because Applegate said it" is a reason doesn't hold up.  This isn't to say that everything Applegate says is wrong---quite the contrary, many of his insights into violence are excellent.  However, since we know that Applegate wasn't right about everything "because Applegate said it" is not logical support.

2) NYPD data is interesting, because it, along with a lot of dashcam videos and reports, DOES indeed tell us that many police officers don't remember using their sights, and we can see large amounts of wild, unsighted one-handed fire in dashcam videos.  The data also tells us that in general, police officers have dismal hit rates.  As such, the idea that "you will use unsighted fire" does not logically lead to "we should teach unsighted fire because that's what cops do under stress".  Quite the contrary, given dismal hit rates, the data tells us that A) LEOs should be taught differently (which has occurred slowly over time) and B) unsighted fire generally gives very poor results.

3) Your contention of #4, above, that "operators will be able to fully access their sights, but only with..." certain conditions met, actually doesn't logically follow the from the earlier parts.  Just because people trained poorly don't use sights when startled doesn't mean that they can't.  Just because people start with defensive empty-hand moves doesn't mean that sights can't be used, either.  There is a logical difference between "don't" and "can't."

Here's the thing:  If you teach unsighted, reactive instinctive aim, you enable people to make basic shots on large targets at close range.  And nothing else.  Anything farther, anything requiring precision, anything outside of that not only can't be done, but the shooter might try anyway, with potentially tragic results.

If you teach body mechanics, understanding of sights (and sight movement, and how that affects point of aim) and sight variation in terms of distance, the person knows how much of the sights to use (for example, at 3 yards, the silhouette of the top of your gun is sufficient for full-width targets at speed, while at 10 yards with a headshot required means using the sights and having a solid front sight focus), and under stress will be perfectly able to make in-close "instinctive" shots using appropriate sight pictures while STILL being able to make more difficult shots because they know how to use sights.

Yes, it takes longer, and more practice to use the sights in that fashion.  However, it doesn't take any longer for those people to still be able to shoot at close-range, open targets.

Trevor's entire contention is just like many other point-shooting arguments I've read, in which people say lots of things that boil down to:
1) self defense shootings are reactionary, close range, high stress ---agreed.  (I'll note that this is different from police shootings in several significant ways)

2) officers and operators will most often not use their sights, despite any type and level of training ----agree that many (though not necessarily most, would have to see actual data on that, particularly because this discussion is not about cops or "operators" but instead about people in self-defense situations) don't use sights;  highly disagree with "despite any type and level of training" and I would very much like to see the data you believe supports this.

I'm thinking that from an operator perspective, Bill Rogers (who has taught more operators than pretty much any other single person in the U.S.) would strongly disagree with you, as would the many graduates of his shooting school, which includes many governmental groups and agencies such as SEAL teams, various special forces groups, and Delta.

I would agree that most LEO firearms training does not (or at least, in the past has not) lent itself to anything resembling firearms proficiency. 

3) In self-defense situations, the defender is attacked first  --- no argument there.  However, that simply gives the range of the engagement, which tells the defender the sight picture necessary for effective shooting ---and doesn't at all support that instinctive fire is what should be taught to people.

4) The fourth point listed above is a non-logical conclusion based on suppositions not supported by evidence.  It phrases as an absolute something which is merely a possibility, and simply isn't supported by data for people in self-defense situations.

If you disagree, that's fine---but I'll ask you to supply data backing up your contention.

I note that police encounters have significantly different ROEs, duty requirements, tactical requirements (for example, many altercations with LEOs begin when the LEO closes with the bad guy to cuff them, and resistance ensues, which ensures that the situation is close range and starts with defensive empty-hand techniques---which has no bearing on standard self-defense situations for non-LEOs), ----and overall the idea that a bunch of people whose national hit average for shooting is about 20% should tell us what technique is optimal is----ridiculous.

To put it mildly.

So, just to make it formal, I'd like to see the data backing his contention that:

1) "officers and operators will most often not use their sights, despite any type and level of training"

and

2) "operators will be able to fully access their sights, but only with time, anticipation, and/or lower levels of threat"

...and I note that using contact-range data for this is useless, because of course you don't use sights from a retention position, which in no way supports any contention that you can't use sights under stress.

In other words---he says a lot of things that I don't think the data supports.  Show me the data, please.

Quote
3.Practice under circumstance which approximate as nearly as possible to actual gun fighting

So you say its a good idea, but not really mandatory for success? I cant argue that it should be mandatory but there is actual evidence that proves it increases success, unlike shooting steel plates.

Yes, because I can tell the difference between "required" and "useful."  (I note I used the word "required," not "mandatory," but given the beliefs espoused by 88 Tactical on radio and TV, I'm not surprised at your usage of it.)

I believe I said that scenario training increases the likelihood of success.  (Which, I'll note, is not quite the same thing as saying "proves it increases success.")

Specifically, I said:
Quote from: ME
While I certainly agree that this is MUCH to be desired, and will do a significantly amount to increase the ability of the student to survive a gun fight---I don't think this is required.  (Which was the original statement.)

Because it isn't required.  Hundreds (thousands, really) of people defend themselves each year with handguns, using weapons successfully in their own defense, without ever having had training or practice of this sort.
 

So obviously, it isn't required or mandatory.  Still a good idea, obviously.

Quote
Lets wrap this up.

Want to become a better fighter?

Hm.  There may be part of the issue, here.  Training someone to be a fighter really is different from training someone to be effective at self-defense.  If I am training a student for a MMA match, that is going to be very different from teaching a student in a self-defense class. 

Similarly for weapons-work.  Teaching LEO-oriented techniques is different from teaching military techniques is different from teaching civilian self-defense techniques.  While the fundamentals of shooting are the same, the circumstances, the laws, and the rules of engagement aren't, so that the equipment choices, tactics, and situations that occur most for each group are very different.

Quote
- Build a solid foundation in the fundamentals of sighted and unsighted shooting

Agreed.  However, if you understand sighted shooting, learning unsighted shooting takes about 5 minutes of training, and then you can just drill it whenever you like.

Quote
- Practice basic combatives

A good idea, and many more people should do this. They should, of course, get training from a qualified instructor who not only understands empty-hand techniques, but understands self-defense laws, situations, and how to integrate empty-hand techniques with weapons techniques in the appropriate context.  "Basic combatives" should mean something different for the three categories of 1) military, 2) LEO, and 3) normal folks who want to learn self-defense.

(In particular, military combatives are VERY different from self-defense combatives.)

Quote
- Range drills. Starting at a very easy level and progressing to very complex.

Agreed.  Preferably with a solid regimen of dryfire practice, for the most gain.

Quote
- Reality based training. Participate in properly run force on force drills, putting it all together in context, working all the physical and mental skills in real time.

Agreed.  Noting that stress training, force-on-force training, and scenario training can be three different things, or scenario training can include aspects of the other two (just as force-on-force can include stress training), ---indeed, putting it all together can make a huge difference to your ability to defend yourself.


And yeah---do a competition match every once in awhile, too.  You'll have fun, you'll get your shooting skills tested, and you'll spend time (and network with, if you are interested in that sort of thing) with other shooters.
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline sjwsti

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 541
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2013, 02:34:24 PM »
Gonna have to give you an epic fail on your research into my competition background. Try again. Cant believe you made me dust off one of these old boxes (BTW the tarnished silver plate was given to me by Bill Wilson at the `99 IDPA National Championships after I won the Expert division. That got me moved to Master) So yeah, I did okay, and am qualified to talk about it. Any class competitor is qualified to comment on the sport as far as Im concerned. But I am a firm believer in that you are only as good as what you can do today, right now, so back in the dusty box and to the basement they go.



Here is a more recent one if it makes you feel better. My partner and I will be two time defending champs this year.


I used to think just like you regarding the use of sights under stress. Personal experience, participating in hundreds of high stress scenarios, and listening to the lessons of men who have been there done that, changed it.

Trevor has it exactly right. You cant compare the experiences of Tier One Operators under fire and apply that to LEOs or civilians. Those former Spec Ops guys that teach sighted fire under all conditions are doing their students a disservice. None of us will ever train to the level of intensity or frequency they do. Our natural instinct will still be to focus on the threat if it is reactionary, close range and immediate. No amount of wishfull thinking will change that. (FWIW a good friend of mine who is a former combat decorated Force Recon Marine took a Larry Vickers class and said it was the worst class he had ever been to, a complete waste of time)

You say police training is poor, that is why their hit percentages are so bad. How do you think they train? Ive been there, and it mostly sighted fire marksmanship, standards based. Should they just raise the standard? Make the target smaller?

Know what type of skills test is proven to raise hit percentages dramatically for LEOs in gunfights? Reality based FOF training. Grossmans books back that up with data from multiple depts. Unfortunately many Depts still dont do reality based training or dont do it frequently enough and shrinking training budgets have only made it harder. Its easier to send an Officer to the range, shoot a "standard qualifier" and put them back on the street.

- Shawn

 


« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 02:55:27 PM by sjwsti »
"It's not what you know that will get you into trouble; it's what you know that isn't true"

www.88tactical.com

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2013, 04:48:08 PM »
Gonna have to give you an epic fail on your research into my competition background.

Hey, you talked about USPSA and Steel Challenge like you knew what you were talking about.  As such, I looked up those things, and while you had experience, your contention that you did well was not supported.

Quote
Try again. Cant believe you made me dust off one of these old boxes (BTW the tarnished silver plate was given to me by Bill Wilson at the `99 IDPA National Championships after I won the Expert division. That got me moved to Master) So yeah, I did okay, and am qualified to talk about it. Any class competitor is qualified to comment on the sport as far as Im concerned.

Oh, anyone is qualified to talk about any sport they like.  Your contention was that you knew it well and did well in it.  So, since you were talking about all competitions, lumping them together, and I had been talking about USPSA, Steel Challenge, and Multigun, and you continued to say that you knew them well and did well in them---it rather makes sense that I would check those, yes?

Congrats on your wins in IDPA, by the way. 

Quote
Here is a more recent one if it makes you feel better. My partner and I will be two time defending champs this year.

So what you are really saying is that competitions are okay as long as you like them?  And are the two-time defending champ?  But other competitions are a waste of time and money, and you would be better off practicing on your own, and those competitions will screw up your tactical reactions?

That is what you have said, after all.

Quote
I used to think just like you regarding the use of sights under stress. Personal experience, participating in hundreds of high stress scenarios, and listening to the lessons of men who have been there done that, changed it.

Interesting.  I found that participating more in high-stress scenario training enables me to better apply my fundamental techniques.   

I also personally find that listening to people who have been there, done that, and learned the lessons of it and used it to make themselves better, works for me also.  For example, people like Jim Cirillo and Bill Rogers.  Or people who have been there and done that, and kept data on it, like Tom Givens.  Or plenty of others.

Quote
Trevor has it exactly right. You cant compare the experiences of Tier One Operators under fire and apply that to LEOs or civilians. Those former Spec Ops guys that teach sighted fire under all conditions are doing their students a disservice.


That's another interesting strawman you've set up.  "Under all conditions" --- I wonder who teaches that?  I don't believe I've ever run into an instructor who I respect who has ever said that.

Quote
None of us will ever train to the level of intensity or frequency they do.

Hm.  Eric Grauffel dryfires generally 3 hours a day, five days a week, plus tends to (live-fire) shoot about 500 rounds a day, 5-6 days a week. Olympic athletes of course train harder in terms of intensity and frequency.

So, your absolutist statement fails.

Taking it your statement and comparing it to everyday folks, your statement assumes that said training level is necessary for people to use sights under stress---which is simply factually untrue.

Example:  Tom Givens (one assumes you know the name, since he was the match director for the '99 IDPA Nats you referenced above) has kept solid data on every one of his students who has ever been in a gun fight or needed to use their CCW weapon.  And you know what?  Plenty of them used sights. 

I also note:  Bill Rogers (I keep bringing him up simply because he has trained thousands, literally, of Tier 1 folks) awhile back opened up his pistol class to regular people.  The same one he has used to train all of those Tier 1 folks.  He gives ratings to his students based on their scores on his qualifying program, and plenty of people flat-out fail.  A very small percentage receive "Advanced" ratings---and that is true even for the Tier 1 folks. 

Let me say that a different way:  Some Tier 1 folks make advanced ratings in his class.  So do some civilians.  Some Tier 1 folks don't achieve said rating---when some civilians do.  As such, while it is true that most people certainly won't train at the intensity of those guys, they can (and do) match the skill level.

And you are saying these folks won't remember to use the sights in a self-defense situation?  And you are serious?

Quote
Our natural instinct will still be to focus on the threat if it is reactionary, close range and immediate. No amount of wishfull thinking will change that

A completely true statement---that still creates no logical basis for your contention that teaching sighted shooting is bad, compared to teaching point-shooting.

(Actually, we tend to focus on the threat no matter what the distance.)

Having a target focus does not preclude using sights.  Having a target focus doesn't mean you can't change it, either.

It is certainly true that under stress, many people turn stupid.  That is the point of training, after all---reduce the stupid, and increase the effectiveness.  Making an automatic assumption that "people won't be able to use sights" is just as ridiculous as-----saying that "if your heart rate goes above 140 you won't be able to see your sights."

Which IS ridiculous.

Quote
(FWIW a good friend of mine who is a former combat decorated Force Recon Marine took a Larry Vickers class and said it was the worst class he had ever been to, a complete waste of time)

Wouldn't know, myself.  When he came to town I wasn't interested in the way he taught pistol, so I didn't take it.  And I'd rather take a carbine class from Frank Proctor or Jack Leuba. 

I'm still curious (and waiting) for data on the statements:
1) "officers and operators will most often not use their sights, despite any type and level of training"
and
2) "operators will be able to fully access their sights, but only with time, anticipation, and/or lower levels of threat"

Quote
You say police training is poor, that is why their hit percentages are so bad. How do you think they train? Ive been there, and it mostly sighted fire marksmanship, standards based. Should they just raise the standard? Make the target smaller?

Let's see---your contention was that since police officers didn't use their sights, we should teach unsighted fire.  My point was that since their hit rate was so incredibly low and they weren't using their sights, "not using sights" seems like a bad idea.

You haven't responded to that.  Instead, you say that police training is bad (which in general, it certainly is) AND that it is standards-based, sighted fire marksmanship.  The implication, of course, is that standards and sighted fire are bad---and yet, that doesn't logically follow. 

HOW something is taught can easily have just as much effect on efficacy as WHAT is taught.  If a police officer is taught sighted fire standing in one spot, slow-fire, with no time limit and no stress, and never handles a weapon except when under the direction supervision of a RO who hands him loaded magazines---and then that person fails miserably in an altercation, that doesn't tell us that sighted fire is bad.  The training did not prepare him for reality.

In a similar fashion, poor standards being met and then officers failing doesn't mean that the concept of standards is bad.

So--no, your contentions don't logically hold up.  It IS true that most police officers are trained in firearms very badly, in a non-realistic fashion.   That has nothing to do with whether or not using the sights, or training to standards, is a good or a bad thing.

I will say that given police officer's current national hit rate, plus the fact that in a number of cases LEOs will be shooting in public, I'm thinking that teaching them non-sighted fire is probably going to result in a lot more shot bystanders.

Quote
Know what type of skills test is proven to raise hit percentages dramatically for LEOs in gunfights? Reality based FOF training. Grossmans books back that up with data from multiple depts. Unfortunately many Depts still dont do reality based training or dont do it frequently enough and shrinking training budgets have only made it harder. Its easier to send an Officer to the range, shoot a "standard qualifier" and put them back on the street.

Agree with that completely.  Another major issue with most departments is that they simply don't have anyone who can run said training correctly, and that isn't something you go to a weekend seminar to learn.

 
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline abbafandr

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 891
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2013, 06:15:34 PM »
And yeah---do a competition match every once in awhile, too.  You'll have fun, you'll get your shooting skills tested, and you'll spend time (and network with, if you are interested in that sort of thing) with other shooters.

I have start shooting some competitions at ENGC and love it. 

Question, jthhapkido, are your fingertips bleeding yet? :laugh:

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2013, 07:55:09 PM »
Guys... we are running out of storage room on the server :D  just kidding
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2013, 08:56:07 PM »
Guys... we are running out of storage room on the server :D  just kidding

But it's a good discussion! 

See what happens when I'm still stuck in my classroom, but don't have any kids running around to teach or grade?  Actual time to type!

...TL;DR!

:)
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline sjwsti

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 541
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2013, 09:07:31 PM »
So what you are really saying is that competitions are okay as long as you like them?  And are the two-time defending champ?  But other competitions are a waste of time and money, and you would be better off practicing on your own, and those competitions will screw up your tactical reactions?

That is what you have said, after all.

Yep, thats what I said. You did read the plaque right? Its a Memorial Shoot. Its the one yearly match I participate in. 20 two person teams from various LE Agencies compete in a one day match, not for the trophy, but to remember and honor OPD Officer and SWAT Team member Jason Tye Pratt,  shot in the line of duty on Sept 11 2003. So yeah, this one gets a pass. 

I'm still curious (and waiting) for data on the statements:
1) "officers and operators will most often not use their sights, despite any type and level of training"
and
2) "operators will be able to fully access their sights, but only with time, anticipation, and/or lower levels of threat"

I sent word to Trevor, cause I know you really want to hear from him, but he is currently out of the country and down range. Not sure if he will reply or not.

- Shawn
"It's not what you know that will get you into trouble; it's what you know that isn't true"

www.88tactical.com

Offline SemperFiGuy

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Location: Omaha, NE
  • Posts: 2079
  • GG Grampaw Wuz a DamYankee Cavalryman
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2013, 09:21:09 PM »
Only Way to Settle this Puppy is...........

Mano-a-Mano, Cara-a-Cara, High Noon, @ OK Corral.

But....bring Shotguns.

sfg
Certified Instructor:  NE CHP & NRA-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Personal Protection Inside/Outside Home, Home Firearm Safety, RTBAV, Metallic Cartridge & Shotshell Reloading.  NRA Chief RSO, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA Range Officer.  NRA RangeTechTeamAdvisor.  NE Hunter Education (F&B).   Glock Armorer

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2013, 09:24:42 PM »

But....bring Shotguns.

Bleh!

Plus, mine spontaneously disassembled part of itself at the Man Vs Man match, and I haven't bothered to put it back together yet.  :)
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2013, 09:31:21 PM »
Yep, thats what I said. You did read the plaque right? Its a Memorial Shoot. Its the one yearly match I participate in. 20 two person teams from various LE Agencies compete in a one day match, not for the trophy, but to remember and honor OPD Officer and SWAT Team member Jason Tye Pratt,  shot in the line of duty on Sept 11 2003. So yeah, this one gets a pass. 

I'm perfectly fine with it being in a good cause (which it certainly is) I'm just amused that with all your earlier comments, you'll still do a competition.  Doesn't doing competitions make you a worse shooter?  Couldn't these people just donate instead, instead of having all these LEO folks make themselves worse by competing?  I mean, it is LEO-agency only (which is interesting, because while I knew you worked with an LEO agency, I didn't think you were one), so we are taking people who NEED those tactical skills and messing them up by having them engage in competition!

Or---perhaps instead maybe it is just a fun thing to do in a good cause that does actually measure some shooting skills?

....which is rather what I've been saying?

And while it is "not for the trophy," you certainly made immediately sure that we all knew you had won it before.  :)
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline sjwsti

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 541
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2013, 08:27:44 AM »
And while it is "not for the trophy," you certainly made immediately sure that we all knew you had won it before.  :)
Well, when you called my background into question, I kinda had to. Seems immediately after doing your weird web search on me and not finding what you wanted you couldn't wait to post about it (epic fail). I haven't, nor will I ever, exaggerate my abilities or qualifications.

....which is rather what I've been saying?
Actually what I thought you were saying was Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.

So I will answer that again;

- Build a solid foundation in the fundamentals of sighted and unsighted shooting
- Practice basic combatives
- Range drills. Starting at a very easy level and progressing to very complex.
- Reality based training. Participate in properly run force on force drills, putting it all together in context, working all the physical and mental skills in real time.

A completely true statement---that still creates no logical basis for your contention that teaching sighted shooting is bad, compared to teaching point-shooting.

(Actually, we tend to focus on the threat no matter what the distance.)

Having a target focus does not preclude using sights.  Having a target focus doesn't mean you can't change it, either.

I never said teaching sighted fire was bad. I said that we should learn both sighted and unsighted fire (see above)

It seems you agree that if the threat is reactionary, close range and immediate we will focus on the target. According to you we should still be able to access the sights, Im assuming using our peripheral vision? Explain to me then exactly how you will reduce the effects of tunnel vision (loss of peripheral vision) which is a recognized physical effect of extreme stress?

It is certainly true that under stress, many people turn stupid.  That is the point of training, after all---reduce the stupid, and increase the effectiveness.  Making an automatic assumption that "people won't be able to use sights" is just as ridiculous as-----saying that "if your heart rate goes above 140 you won't be able to see your sights."

Which IS ridiculous.

There you go calling people stupid again (seems you have been doing that a lot lately). Why do you think that happens? Do you think there may be a real physiological reason for it? That under duress the higher thinking parts of our brain shut down while the lower functioning, instinctive part turns on?

I'm still curious (and waiting) for data on the statements:
1) "officers and operators will most often not use their sights, despite any type and level of training"
and
2) "operators will be able to fully access their sights, but only with time, anticipation, and/or lower levels of threat"

This is very easy to answer and the evidence can be seen on hundreds of videos of actual shootings available online. It is usually quite obvious that under duress when the attack is immediate, reactionary, and close range people will point shoot. Its not because they are stupid, its because the lower instinctive part of their brain has taken over.

This were you will see flinching, movement away from the threat and very often one handed target focus shooting. The extreme physical effects of stress will likely be present, tunnel vision, loss of hearing, time distortion are just a few. Proper training and repetition can condition good reflexive gross motor responses here. Getting a good sight picture wont likely be one of them.

Given time, anticipation, and/or lower levels of threat the conscious higher functioning part of the brain can be used, and thats when you "remember" to use the sights. Which you should, and is why you need to know and practice, sighted and un sighted fire.

This video is a perfect example. The first LEO is ambushed, reacts instinctively and obviously point shoots. The second LEO present, has distance and time. His reaction is noticeably different. Two hands on the gun, gun is in his line of sight, uses cover effectively and and helps end the threat with more accurate fire. Two LEOS, same agency, same training but different responses due to different parts of the brain being used.

 


 




"It's not what you know that will get you into trouble; it's what you know that isn't true"

www.88tactical.com

Offline sjwsti

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 541
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2013, 08:29:36 AM »
As far as point shooting not being accurate, well this guy has something to say about that.

"It's not what you know that will get you into trouble; it's what you know that isn't true"

www.88tactical.com

Offline bullit

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 2143
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2013, 08:41:19 AM »
That is ONE FAT COP ......

Offline AAllen

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 4275
Re: Elements to Win a Gun Fight...and how to practice.
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2013, 08:47:00 AM »
I enjoy these discussions, you guys are basically discussing two sides of the same coin.  In the end you are trying to prepare and train for the same thing, just using two different training methods.  Is one better than the other, personally I doubt it.  You are both training people to be able to be effective in high stress self defense situations, one is encouraging competition shooting which does create some stress and uses fine motor skills so you make your reactions almost automatic.  The other uses more force on force/close combat training to do the same thing (and encourages the use of "natural" reactions to the stressors).

The big difference is who these training methods are meant for, the compition style training methods are better for at least a segment of the civilian self defense market, it makes training fun and gives them measurables where they can see their progress (and who is not at least a little competitive).  The other is directed more toward the professional operator, the guy who faces these challenges every day and needs to train in shorter spurts and does it not because it is fun but because his life depends upon it.

Personally I think everyone would benefit from some of both types of training, and as far as the major amount someone would do would need to be directed at which ever system is right for their needs.