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.
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.)
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:
...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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
