Do not use airosft or air guns for firearms training

Have to agree the OP, who hasn't returned to address the responses, is off-base and was just trying to drive people to his YouTube channel, as one member reporting the post (after a lot of responses had already gone up) suggested. I haven't bothered to look at the YouTube vids because the premise is obviously wrong. If it were right, dry-fire practice would be a bad idea. And yet, most top shots report dry firing greatly improves their shooting. It is ingraining the muscle movements that present and align the weapon and operate the trigger that matters.
 
So airsoft allows you to practice gunhandling, mag changes, sight pictures and trigger press, but doesn't have recoil.

It DOES allow you to practice some of the most important fundamentals of shooting (namely, gunhandling, mag changes, sight pictures and trigger press) away from a live range; there's no value in that?

Huh-guess we shouldn't dry-fire either, then.

;)

Larry
 
Scenario training and FOF are also types of games. What are they called when large scale? Oh yeah, war games. They are just games designed to be instructive. Point is, discounting the game aspect is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

Lets not pretend that we dont know what "its a game" actually refers to. Within the context of this discussion, calling something a game largely refers to the fact that GAMING IMPERATIVES are often centered around the need or desire to make a "game" sporting/entertaining. Game imperatives are rarely if ever center around the management of real combat. FOF and "WARGAMES" on the other hand is largely about the concepts and management of real combative conditions. FOF as well as WARGAMES are often carried out in a manner as close to realism as safety and prudence allows. A gaming mentality is not really conducive to real combat simply because "you dont fight that way" and "wouldnt fight that way".
 
A gaming mentality is not really conducive to real combat simply because "you dont fight that way" and "wouldnt fight that way".
Click to expand...
To be fair, this post is the first to address concept of "gaming mentality".

A 'gaming mentality' can be problematic when preparing for real combat. Games themselves, depending on how they are constructed and carried out can provide beneficial training although it is impossible for any game to fully replicate real combat. Of course we know that fully replicating combat is not necessary to gain skills, or no one could train for combat at all except while actually being in the midst of real combat.

My take:

1. It's unreasonable to expect any type of training to fully replicate real combat. Nothing but real combat replicates real combat. Therefore, unless one takes the view that all training is useless because it doesn't fully replicate real combat, it is a given that at least some benefits can be derived from something that does not fully replicate real combat.

2. A game may or may not provide training benefit depending on how it is set up and carried through. Even if it does provide training benefit, it won't fully replicate real combat.

3. A "gaming mentality" is not at all the same as participating in "games". Some games are set up with a "gaming mentality", others are not. Some people participating in "games" do so with a "gaming mentality" while others focus on the potential training benefits. Even in the "practical" pistol sports, you see people who are in it purely for the win (gaming mentality) and others who are clearly trying to build good habits and consider it to be part of their training.

Airsoft guns and airguns help with sight alignment, trigger control, and can be used to work on some aspects of gun handling. But they don't replicate recoil properly. That's the short version of the OP less about 1300 words and all the youtube links.
 
1. It's unreasonable to expect any type of training to fully replicate real combat. Nothing but real combat replicates real combat. Therefore, unless one takes the view that all training is useless because it doesn't fully replicate real combat, it is a given that at least some benefits can be derived from something that does not fully replicate real combat.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that anyone suggested that they expect training to fully replicate real combat. I simply highlighting the disparity between a thoughtful attempt to simulate real issues and condition vs mimicking self defense nuances within the context of a game which is regulated for the purpose of being sporting and entertaining. One is designed to train and the other is designed to entertain.

2. A game may or may not provide training benefit depending on how it is set up and carried through. Even if it does provide training benefit, it won't fully replicate real combat.
Click to expand...

again, I do not believe that replicating real combat was the standard referenced in this discussion. I think the standard that I suggested was to simply training with the proper context which is absent a bunch of adverse gaming issues which you may have to constantly discriminate. I simply promote the idea that a game is a game and training is training.

3. A "gaming mentality" is not at all the same as participating in "games". Some games are set up with a "gaming mentality", others are not. Some people participating in "games" do so with a "gaming mentality" while others focus on the potential training benefits. Even in the "practical" pistol sports, you see people who are in it purely for the win (gaming mentality) and others who are clearly trying to build good habits and consider it to be part of their training.
Click to expand...

sure and a person might play whack a mole with the idea of improving lumber jack skills but you can see where suggesting that you develop, sharpen, further or attain skill in such a manner might be considered muddy water.
 
I simply highlighting the disparity between a thoughtful attempt to simulate real issues and condition vs mimicking self defense nuances within the context of a game which is regulated for the purpose of being sporting and entertaining. One is designed to train and the other is designed to entertain.
Click to expand...
Some games are designed purely to entertain, some are designed with an eye to both (in differing levels), some are even designed primarily to be training. The idea that there are no games that provide training benefit is just wrong. IDPA, for example, was specifically designed with the idea of providing training value.

"IDPA is the use of practical equipment including full charge service ammunition to solve simulated real world self-defense scenarios using practical handguns and holsters that are suitable for self-defense use."​

We can argue about how well they managed to do that (and I'd be the first to point out that they have failed in some respects), but regardless of the outcome it's clear that it is not true that all games are designed with only entertainment in mind.
sure and a person might play whack a mole with the idea of improving lumber jack skills ...
Click to expand...
I looked back at my post and I don't see anything suggesting that every possible game one could list would provide some kind of training value.
I do not believe that replicating real combat was the standard referenced in this discussion.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Let me try again. Here's what I responded to:

"A gaming mentality is not really conducive to real combat simply because "you dont fight that way" and "wouldnt fight that way"."

Let me try again.

1. It's unreasonable to expect any type of training to be conducted in exactly the "way people fight". That's simply impossible. Therefore, unless one takes the view that all training is useless because it doesn't fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight" , it is a given that there is the possibility that at least some benefits can be derived from something that does not fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight".

2. A game may or may not provide training benefit depending on how it is set up and carried through. Even if it does provide training benefit, it won't fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight".

3. A "gaming mentality" is not at all the same as participating in "games". Some games are set up with a "gaming mentality", others are not. Some people participating in "games" do so with a "gaming mentality" while others focus on the potential training benefits. Even in the "practical" pistol sports, you see people who are in it purely for the win (gaming mentality) and others who are clearly trying to build good habits and consider it to be part of their training.

Airsoft guns and airguns help with sight alignment, trigger control, and can be used to work on some aspects of gun handling. There is the possibility that their use could provide training practice depending on how that use is structured and carried out. But they don't replicate recoil properly which limits how much one can learn from training with them.
 
simunitions or sim rounds as we say are great for force on force room clearing, building clearing, traffic stop, suspect persons, domestics......
 
I'm not one of them experts, but IMHO, 'gaming mentality' or not, any gun handling is better than no gun handling.
 
Have to agree the OP, who hasn't returned to address the responses, is off-base and was just trying to drive people to his YouTube channel, as one member reporting the post (after a lot of responses had already gone up) suggested.
Click to expand...

Which one of those links goes to HIS channel? Just curious because it seems like every one of these goes to a different channel. Channels are from folks I have never heard of before and famous one like Forgotten Weapons and Vickers' channel. You don't think Larry Vickers is her posting under a new name, do you?
 
There is a VAST amount of practice and training you can get without ever firing a live shot IMO. Obviously this is not to say live fire is un-necessary but sight alighnment, draw stroke, mag changes, movement, general handling etc. can all be done without even a trigger press.

As far as airguns gun one thing a spring gun will teach you is follow through and making sure you press the trigger and hold the gun the same way every time and it will do so with far less room for error then a firearm. This doesn’t transfer one for one of course as firearms are completely different but the mentality carries over, same grip, same trigger press, same follow through. You just need to learn those specifics to the gun in question.

Ohhh yeah FUN....duh. :)
 
When used properly, airsoft and paintball can be used to teach tactics force on force. Most of us don’t have access to simunitions nor do most of us have a place to practice even if we did.

For me the practical shooting club was eye opening. We do so many things that you’d never be able to do in a traditional range setting. This includes drawing from concealment, rapid fire, engaging multiple targets, shooting on the move, shooting moving objects, and shooting from cover. This isn’t IPSC or PPC, but we do some similar drills. The idea is to shoot what we carry and focus on keeping it real.

We don’t do force on force training even though one of our members is a trainer for the local police department. I think worrying about bad guys shooting back at you is a game changer in terms of how we stand and present ourselves. Will you still hit your mark with slow aimed fire when there are incoming rounds? You have to be very aware of cover, concealment, and angles. I learned that the hard way in paintball.

Anyway, I think most of us agree the initial post is bunk and that any training is better than no training.
 
Do not use YouTube as a training aide either. Anybody with internet access can post anything they want there.
Computer games have nothing whatever to do with reality. Simulators used by the military are different critters. Years ago, the U.S. military actually sent some game programmers to school so they would know how a real firearm works and reacts. Of course, nobody is shooting at you. And you've been fed regularly and had plenty of sleep in nice dry, warm places.
Most computer games are programmed by people who have never seen a real firearm.
"...or competitive shooting..." You mean like the Olympics? Where most participating countries' citizens are not allowed to own real firearms so the International Olympic Committee went to 10 Meter AIR rifles and pistols? Said rifles/pistols use pellets, match grade pellets. Not BB's. They're as accurate as any real target rifle. The 'bull' 10X ring is supposedly 1/64" diameter.
Air Soft 'guns' are toys. You can spend more than 3 grand USD on an Olympic grade Feinwerkbau air rifle though. They ain't toys. Anyway, the techniques involving breathing, sight picture and trigger control are exactly the same with a quality air rifle or pistol as they are with a high end target rifle or pistol.
"...getting the gun out of the holster safely and..." Is practiced by the 'Quick Draw' guys who use blanks.
 
So airsoft allows you to practice gunhandling, mag changes, sight pictures and trigger press, but doesn't have recoil.

It DOES allow you to practice some of the most important fundamentals of shooting (namely, gunhandling, mag changes, sight pictures and trigger press) away from a live range; there's no value in that?
Click to expand...

This got me wondering...since airsoft and other replicas can't accurately replicate actual firing and recoil, I get that they aren't useful training tools for firing and recoil.

And, I'm not going to argue that if they are faithful reproductions of actual firearms (short of actually shooting real firearm ammo), then there would be some value using them for the fundamentals given above.

What I'm wondering about is WHY would you use an airsoft (etc) for that??

Why not use a real gun?? Why not use THE real gun you would really be using in a "non-training" situation???

Seems to me that you would get BETTER training with a real gun than with an airsoft or something like it.
If you are stopping short of live fire, why wouldn't the real gun be better, as it gives you the exact weight, feel and operation of controls as the real gun, because it IS the real gun. Can't see why one would spend any money on an airsoft if you already have the real gun the airsoft copies...

(and, if you don't, what's the point of "training" on a copy of a gun you don't have???)
 
And, I'm not going to argue that if they are faithful reproductions of actual firearms (short of actually shooting real firearm ammo), then there would be some value using them for the fundamentals given above.
Click to expand...

Airsoft manufactures licensed replicas of real guns.

Such as a Springfield XDM

They are a lot more $$ than the toys for the airsoft game, but they are precise replicas of the real gun that you can shoot in your basement.
 
44 AMP said:
What I'm wondering about is WHY would you use an airsoft (etc) for that??

Why not use a real gun?? Why not use THE real gun you would really be using in a "non-training" situation???

Seems to me that you would get BETTER training with a real gun than with an airsoft or something like it.
Click to expand...

I could see starting a new shooter with an airsoft item that replicates a real arm's operation. When the shooter is truly unfamiliar with firearms, he can't have the universe of safety habits we all take for granted, so he gets cocooned in my attention and almost constant communication. A loud range and lots of actual gunfire works against that communication even with electronic ear protection.

If I can do that in a non-threatening atmosphere like a suburban backyard, and speak in a conversational voice, I'm not competing with recoil and noise for that person's attention.

I value my own dry-fire practice, but I take seriously the idea that dry-fire can erode safety habits by training me to expect an arm to be unloaded. In additional to my own dry-fire practice, I have always introduced someone to shooting with a living room or dining room table demonstration of function with some handling for them as well. I don't know if I could keep a new student's interest with a lot of dry-fire, or if it would do anything for them but teach that they can pull the trigger with nothing happening.

I think I get a lot out of dry-fire that a new student wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top