IS TRAINING OF ANY USE - PART 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

okjoe

Moderator
Re the comment on point shooting:

Point Shooting is shooting san sights.

Point and Shoot is aimed shooting using
the index finger to aim the gun.

It is natural, instinctive, fast, and
accurate.

It is not new, but was most recently
invented again and developed at the
Vermont Police Academy.

Articles on P&S have recently appeared in
the Southern Lawman Magazine, The Backup,
American Police Beat, WomenPolice, POLICE,
and the IACP journal. The articles were
written by me, or based on a scientific
paper on the subject matter written by a
former member of the Vermont Police Academy
staff and the lead VSP firearms instructor.
Walter got it placed in a few of the
publications.

Training provides familiarity with guns and
their use. That is no doubt helpful.

Every one in a gunfight is not killed or
wounded. That is the exception not the
rule. Surviving means you were lucky.
Watch some videos.

Hitting/killing the other guy and surviving
means you did something right and you were
lucky.

Doing that consistantly means you are
good at that and also lucky.

How many gunfight videos do you have that
show sighted shooting used in real time?

edited 9:31 & 9:39 Pacific Time


[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 03, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
>>To date NOBODY has found a scientific source to claim muscle memory reflex exists.<<

I put that MYTH to rest a couple of months ago. Obviously, SOMEONE does not LISTEN. During my first "low light" excersise (which was, in fact, "no light", I could barely tell that there was a target in front of me, certainly no outline present), I put SEVEN SHOTS inside of a 3 by 5 inch oval from a concealed holster, about an inch and a half from the center of the heart. Since that weekend was my first formal training, and I had learned many new things, I was astonished when I turned my flashlight onto that target at the end of the drill. The instructors complimented my performance, but it really wasn't out of the ordinary. They had seen it hundreds, if not thousands of times before. But alas, I've yet to find a scientific journal that wants to publish that target, so I guess it doesn't qualify as "scientific evidence". It certainly IS material evidence, of an undisputable nature.

I'm beginning to wonder if Plusp's website, $25 courses, and his participation here is not just a big parody of RKBA.

------------------
The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil at every front, until I have breathed my last breath.
 
Hi, guys,

Training of any kind is no substitute for common sense. Had the Fab Four in New York put all 41 shots in a three inch circle would it have been better?

To too many gun oriented people, the first thought in almost any situation is to reach for a gun. There is an old saying that if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Self defence does not begin with shooting the gun, but that is where most schools seem to start. Nor does it end when the BG is down. That is when your troubles really start! Even if you have a badge and three buddies.

Sure, learn to shoot. But learn to think also, and I don't mean trying to remember whether you are in carry mode 1, 2 7, 16 or 28 or whether you are in condition red, yellow, green, or purple with chartreuse polka-dots. That kind of stuff is for file clerks who color code folders.

Jim
 
I put that MYTH to rest a couple of months ago. Obviously, SOMEONE does not LISTEN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you got into a REAL shooting and what happened? Masturbation doesn not make one an expert on sex. Sorry to be harsh, but reality and "tests" aren't related. Also you KNEW it was a test, and you KNEW there was no penalty for failure and you KNEW to have the gun in your hand for whatever you were doing.
Doesn't sound very realistic to me.
You nor anyone else has yet to post a validated source for MMR and you won't find one. Hell, I started the search at the Mayo Clinic down the street a bit. It is just another thing we WANT to believe and would LIKE to believe to dodge the real issues.
If you think a muscle can remember anything you'd be a whiz at palm reading.
I guess I 'll have raise prices to be more creditable. Darn, students will hate that one.
As for RKBA, my donations to pro gun groups was over $2,000. How'd you do? Send em a "test" check? :-)
 
"cry freetown" a documentary about sierra leone aired feb 20th on CNN showed a disturbing gunfight battle where UN peackeepers were getting slaughtered by one sniper. After the day long battle with at least ten soldiers killed, they managed to take over the building and capture the sniper. The sniper was a half naked 8 year old boy armed with an AK-47. He was easily trained the simple art of shooting. As he was being detained, he resorted to bitting the soldiers boots in oder to survive. What is the point of this; well you needed a tank to take this boy out and all the training in the world could not have saved these soldiers. Yes I agree with pluspinc, but what are the alternatives. Maybe one well trained marine sniper could have ended the situation in less than an hour !
 
I suspect that training, apart for improving or not improving accuracy, would improve chances of unholstering, drawing, disengaging the safety and firing by design rather than by accident. Those issues are as likely to be the decisive factor as pin-point (rather than merely adequate) accuracy.
 
Statement tactfully retracted. (But it was a good one) :D

[This message has been edited by fastforty (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
chaho-
Who ever said UN Peacekeepers (or rank and file US Military) are well trained in the use of firearms? OTOH, history is replete with tales of non-military "farmers" staving off insurmountable adverse forces by superior use of their weapons. Just because this youngster didn't provide a certificate from Gunsite or Thunder Ranch doesn't mean he wasn't trained. In fact, the evidence would indicate that he was....by someone who knew what they were doing.

PlusP and FastForty-
You've got mail.

All others-
Kindly avoid the personal attacks.
Rich Lucibella
 
My first round of formal firearms training went something like this:

1. Introduction and overview to firearms fundamentals and safety in the classroom.

2. Second classroom day, more information, introduction to manipulating the weapon, grip, sight alignment, etc, ect.

3. Several days at the range. The usual basics course.

4. A night shoot - the instructors said we would do BETTER than during the day. They were right. They said the reason that students across the board did better, and always do, is that you must revert to the basics and muscle memory.

Erik
 
PlusP--

Sorry that I've been out of this one, guy. Work and school, y'know.

To begin with:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Pluspinc says: "The thugs do well with a 91% HIT rate against cops based on DOJ study. We'd like to think we have special secrets to teach students so they can defend themselves and it must be formal and complex so it looks like we have knowledge they should pay for."[/quote]

So we're comparing aggressive attacks by criminials to purely defensive shootings by cops? Since we're defining the criminials as "Criminals", one must assume that they shot first. Out of malice. Out of first intent. Cops, by definition, shoot back. They react. Extended shootouts, I'm sure you'll agree, just don't happen, to speak of. It's a LONG shootout that goes 30 seconds! RARELY do criminals ever, EVER return fire. Cops who shoot without reacting to some strong fear or tension-inducing stimulous (i.e.: belief that theirs or another's life is in danger) fall under the catagory of Criminals. Make sense? Are you going to give a man the same credit for shooting ability who walks into a liquor store and shoots once, killing the clerk, as you do the cop who beats the drop? For a cop, or any other good guy for that matter, to win, he has to be not just "as good" as the criminal, but far and away better.

Apples and oranges. Would you NOT agree? (C'mon, man, we've GOT to find some common ground here! :))


I know that you disparage my use of paper plates and double taps. Why do I do it? Because emptying my pistol into a paper plate, or a life-size tactical silohuette, or a B-24, or a manniquenn dressed up in the latest gangsta apparel, Nikes, and gold jewelry, does not represent good practice; it represents a waste of ammo.

We all see it-- the guy who is self-guided, going out to the range. He has no technique. He has a pistol of reasonable quality, and he loads it with good quality ammo. He then proceeds to empty the pistol into the target. Again, and again, and again. Does he improve? Not really. By the end of the shooting session, he's no better than he was about halfway-through. Why? Doesn't practice make perfect? No. Perfect practice makes perfect. We'll never have that, so we'd better at least improve upon simply emptying the magazine into a target, reloading, and doing it again.

I practice from the holster. I draw, double tap, and scan. Sometimes I practice a pair of DT's. My reaction drills usually involve having a buddy call one, two, or three plates of the 6+ that I'll have up and labeled. I then draw, hit them, and scan. Then I re-holster. What does it help me to keep plunking away into one target? Is it hard to do? No. So I can hit it at the ranges I practice at (typically 3-25 yards, and occasionally a magazine or two at 50 and 100, but that's more for fun)-- so what? I'm interested in training myself to quickly get from reaction to shots on target. If I'm concerned that the target is still a danger (i.e., still moving), I'll DT it again.

Are you TEACHING target fixation, tunnel vision, and shooting to slide-lock? Maybe I misunderstand you. I really hope I do.

I'm going to give you room, because I think that many are coming down pretty hard on you, here. Obviously we're on the same side with regards to RKBA, so let's hear no more questioning by members of Pluspinc's dedication on THAT point, okay?

We're discussiong personal techniques, here. Anything that WORKS is NOT WRONG, so long as it's not inherently dangerous! I have no doubt that you can teach an uninitiated young girl to shoot better than many officers in a matter of minutes; I've seen it done in a couple of hours, myself. What I personally question is this supposed abandonment of technique. When I shoot, I'm not consciously THINKING about technique; I'm doing it to remember the feel. At the most, the words "Front sight; squeeze" enter my mind as I shoot. This is pretty durn simple, in my opinion. You'll get no arguement from as to shooting being simple in theory, and practice. You'll get no arguement from me that KISS is the way to go. But what's wrong with practicing Weaver technique and front sight awareness? How much simpler and better is your P.S. technique than a solid Weaver at 10 yards?

This is just theory, all of it. Not worth yelling over, people.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And no, if it matters, I've never shot at anyone.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

L.P.
 
If you missed it, Gabe Suarez posted a humorous and well-spoken reply, on page 2 of the Part One of this thread. Since he is a trainer by profession (as is PlusP, we're told), it's worth reading.

I disagree with many of PlusP's ideas, but I have no personal axe to grind with him, or anyone else for that matter. Opinions are like ---holes, right? Everybody's got 'em. I am interested in hearing well-stated opinion based on fact, experience, and training, and will compare them to my own and see how they sync up. And learn from what I KNOW i don't know, which is a lot.

I do think that what is simple should not be made too complicated, and that is one of the hardest things for anyone to do, regardless of the subject. That, and using one's brain, first.



[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
We all know that "muscle memory" is really CONDITIONED RESPONSE. +P has no argument with that, just the term "MM". What he's pointed out is that in nearly 1K videos of shootings, the reponses we've "conditioned" for are not EVIDENT. Was does appear, is a base "instinct" of some sort that manifests itself in different ways. Guns are thrust out at the ends of extended arms, stances are lacking, and BG's (or their weapons) appear to be the focus, not the sights.

We know it takes an average of 3K reps for a response to BE conditioned in the first place. Trainers generally FAR ecxeed that number, regardless of what drill or technique is in question. That's why, under most any simulated stress you can create, THEY have little or no difficulty performing. Simulations can never place in you the "fear for your life" that will likely occur in the real world. Some have held to this conditioning under lethal assault, and many admit they have not; it's dependent on the person. What we should all be able to agree on, is that the vast majority of the rank and file will not(some cannot)pursue this level of committment.

Now, since we know from the video's what does happen to MOST people, can we adjust the focus of our training to give THEM something of value? Is it more of the same target-shooting based curricula that's been expounded on and re-hashed for years? Or could we try something simpler? Indeed, will we not benefit ourselves from practicing the core, basic, principles? After all, we do not know for certain if our conditioning WILL or will not hold "under fire", until it happens.

Now to answer Rich's frustrations. It's called point firing, point shooting, sightless indexing, or whatever. It should be done up close, because that's where FEAR will most likely manifest itself. Not out at 15-25yds, no one advocates that. It should be done after dark, under different levels of lighting, because that's most likely when we're going to be assaulted. Train hardest with what your likely to need the MOST. That includes your holster of choice, the safety switch on your pistol(if any), and the pull of its trigger. It does NOT include tactical reloads, weak-hand fire, and 25yd barricade firing, to name just a few.

Please don't flame me, advanced techniques have their place, just not with recruit level personnel or the general CCW populace. For instance, when have you last experienced a malf with FACTORY ammo in a CLEAN gun? Be honest! For me, it was a feed failure in my new 40, the first to occur in YEARS of shooting practice. A non-issue by most any standard. Haven't you noticed that the number of rounds fired per LEO has gone WAY up in the last decade? Could this be due to the spray-and-pray mentality that can occur under lethal fire? And in those instances(Diallo?), was reloading NEEDED?, or would HITS have done the trick? Please, don't beat me up with a "one-time" account. I'm speaking of the vast majority of encounters involving the vast majority of cops, NOT SWAT or MILITARY engagements.
 
as usual, folks are arguing about The One True Way, as if there is a single doctrine that works best for all people, in all situations. life doesn't work that way IMO.

different people have different characteristics. some folks are born (or develop very early) with lots of physical courage and agression, others aren't. many if not most of those who have been in mortal combat before will have an advantage in being able to operate willfully rather than reactively when faced with danger again. an LEO serving a warrant to a known violent criminal will already be in "condition red" if and when things unravel; he/she will have the "shoot 'em if needed" program already running in the ol' processor. Joe Sixpack who is stocking up on Cheetos and Diet Belch at Quickie Mart will probably be in "condition white" and probably be less likely to react as trained when a gun is pointed at him.

then there's the level of training adhered to. some folks practice their draw stroke and stoppage drills daily, some just dry fire daily, some weekly, etc.

I figure that there is a sort of "skills pyramid" such that most people can/will retain and utilize only a limited set of skills, some can/will maintain a good set of skills, and a small percentage can/will maintain top skill levels. this, combined with the uncertainty of mental readiness and response mode, seems to indicate that it might be best if training was broken down into levels something like this;
- level I; basic gun handling, safety, instinctive "point-n-click" one-hand shooting, and reloading under pressure.
- level II; add a draw stroke from firing grasp, two-hand grips, aimed fire, retention, tap-rack-bang.
- level III; add a complete draw stroke, full set of stoppage drills, 25-yard shooting, alternate positions (I mean prone, paddy squat, and kneeling you lechers ;)), tactical reloads.
- level IV; add light saber use and telekinesis.
one might set some criterion as to what performance level to expect. a guy who practices yearly might only function at Level I at the range, and Odin help him in combat. a guy who practices monthly might perform to Level II at the range but Level I in combat. and so forth. now with some actual combat experience, a guy might have the same capabilities in combat as at the range. and some lucky folks have nerves of steel and will perform proficiently the first time, just like some folks pick up a guitar and play clean chords within a few minutes.

now the average non-LEO schlep like me might never get to the point of functioning at Level II in a real gunfight, simply because
a) I don't go around in condition yellow or red;
b) any gunfight I have will be my first
c) I'm not practicing all of the stoppage drills daily, nor doing any visualization exercises
d) being a plain ol' citizen, generally I cannot operate with a "shoot 'em if there's any doubts" policy; the damned legal system says I have to keep my weapon concealed until there is a clear threat, retreat if possible, only respond with equal force, ensure that there is ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, etc etc etc. self-defenders are at an extreme disadvantage IMHO.

now I don't claim that there's no use in me training to Level II or higher. but given the amount of time I spend on training, I figure that I might want to devote the bulk of it to the most basic fundamentals.



[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
here's a possible reason why the bad guys shoot well in perp/cop shootouts. a friend's wife was a nurse at one of the local hospitals, and her observation was that the local bangers would go out and get shot, get taken to the hospital, get patched up, and repeat the process over and over. if these guys are getting plugged with crappy .22s and .25s most of the time, they may have inured themselves to the fear of being shot. after all, in their minds getting shot is inconvenient and painful but neither life-threatening nor crippling. so when a banger decides to ambush a cop, the only fear he has is getting caught. so he wouldn't be dealing with the full adrenaline dump situation. it'd be almost like a real-life video game.
 
I think we can ALL learn something new. Standing flatfooted and blasting paper plates doesn't teach you to use cover, shoot while moving, reload your gun in a huurry etc.. This is all stuff I'm JUST learning though shooting IDPA. HOWEVER its a lifetime of shooting that allows me to not worry too much about hitting the target,or clearing a jam. THAT part comes pretty naturally. Why? Must be all that hunting and shooting skeet and popping tin cans.

There is a WORLD of differnce between a "scrawny 8 year old" with an automatic rifle shooting from Cover in a war zone, a hooped up pusher looking to settle a score and a guy who walks into a mcdonalds and starts shooting strangers. There isn't much "defensive shooting" to be done if someone decides to shoot you while your back is turned getting the guy a Big Mac. There in lies the problem with the stats. The BG KNOWS he's got the drop.. .. walks right up and pops the clerk at CONTACT range. The cop across the store drops his coffee says OH ^%$#!!!! and pulls his sidearm... is it a wonder he might miss a few shots??

Its TOUGH for us "untrained" masses to live our lives on yellow alert. We aren't "on the beat" or on patrol. Maybe... when we strap on our guns we OUGHT to be. But you don't just tell someone 'be aware". You have to tell them WHAT to be aware of.

I get tired of hearing watch 900 videos and you'll see.. its easy etc etc. The problem is Pluspinc WON'T explain it unless you send your $25 or whatever. And that's his right. It is his livelyhood, after all. Why share his "trade secrets" with other members of TFL who are his competitors.I suspect a lot of the "zen master" like enigma of his methods are far more about NOT letting his cash out of the bag, so to speak.

You can learn a LOT in a short time, particularly if you let yourself be trained. in the example of the untrained female shooter.. yeah I think MOST experienced shooters can train that person 1 trick WHY?? Women have BETTER hand eye co-ordination and don't ASSUME they know anything about gun handling the way a guy with NO knwowledge will mimic "something he saw" watching action films. Eliminate the macho factor, and with a properly motivated student training is relatively easy.

You'll OFTEN see a first time shooter score a bullseye on their FIRST shot.. but on the second shot (when they realize the gun kicks, makes noise and belches brass and smoke) they flinch and MISS. Its that "instinctual shooting?"

I'm not sure I'd learn ANYTHING watching 900+ videos.. but I'm pretty darn sure i learn something when I get up off the couch and try something new.

And I plan on keeping at it.

Even if its just for fun. ;)

Dr.Rob
 
Dr. Rob: +P tells you on his site that he is NOT afraid of you carrying a camera or recorder to his classes, as he has nothing to hide. I corresponded with him over several weeks, and learned a GREAT deal. I asked on three occasions, maybe four, to allow me to PAY FULL PRICE for his class and just have a videotape mailed to me. No response. I guess that MONEY may not be his only concern. Perhaps he truly cares that you are exposed to it "hands on", under guidance. I for one think that's laudable. :)
 
Wow, like heated topic dudes! Outside of true gunfight experience I suppose there is no way to know who is right. I have trained with one of the instructors on this forum several times and left his class feeling like I had a good base to work with. I have no wish to be in real situations (as he has) to find out whether it is valid, I train to avoid those situations. However, being the diligent student, I have studied other techniques and would not discount them, Ive even practiced them.
It is a good thing to work with as many techniques as you can and find the one that seems most right. This means really thinking about the objective, and honestly considering what is said by those who been there - regardless of their technique. Inevitably, it may be that one thing you hadn't planned on if, god forbid, the flag ever drops. Even a precursory knowledge of something different may change the outcome entirely. Please forgive the abstruse nature here :)
 
Well, jeez, this seems like a familiar scenario; the 'one true path' as mentioned above, doesn't exist.

I was an ER MD for 20 years. We trained for multiple trauma cases with multiple victims, even had 'hysterical mothers' one of whom was so convincing she nearly had some Valium injected into her vein before she calmly said 'I'm part of the exercise.' We also trained for Basic Life Support ('CPR'), and Advanced Cardiac Life Support. We had manikins with EKG strips, tracheas to be intubated, and chests to pump on.

The training was real, and aided immensely to the ability of the responding team to any type of emergency. Don't think we were sweating? Well, we were, believe me. In fact, in taking your oral boards in Emergency Medicine, they would let hypothetical patients 'crash and burn' for the first two years, then had to stop, for the doctors whose hypothetical patients would die were too traumatized!! Mind you, this was without a manikin in the room, just pictures of the patient, EKG's, CT scans, lab tests, X-rays; you get the idea. It was scary.

So, does training help you respond to an emergency? You bet it does. No question about it. The question arises about what sort of training with a firearm will help you respond to an emergency. My answer?

The training should be such that you don't have to THINK about anything while you are doing it. Because you have done it all before. Many times. If you have to stop and think about the safety, which color the night sight dot is on the front sight, or anything else, you may well lose the fight.
From drawing the gun to making the decision to pull the trigger, and doing so until the threat is neutralized should be automatic.

As for the path, that is up to you. Walt
 
Muscle memory is an incorrect term used to describe “Motor Response”. Albeit if we must split that hair in order to state the obvious (i.e. repetitive training improves physical performance) so be it. Physiologists have long since scientifically proved the correlation between training and improved physical performance. Anyone who would deny such a correlation exists must also deny that weight training makes you stronger, speed training makes you faster, aerobic training improves endurance and practicing free throws makes you perform better at the foul line. Such denials would be obvious babblings based in ignorance or at best wishful hypotheses. Either way they would be of the same value.

Controlled motor response:

Conditioned motor response:

Reflex motor response:

The above are the three main divisions of our Motor Response mechanism. The goal of training is to integrate good executable technique, through repetition and familiarization, and transition from controlled motor response to conditioned or ultimately reflex response when presented with certain stimuli or situations.

To ignore training with regard to firearms and self-defense scenarios leaves you at the mercy of your natural physical abilities. For a small few this may be enough. However, for me, I would rather not trust in the simple hope that my natural, untrained, reflex motor response is better then the next guys’. As well, I prefer my tactical thinking to be governed by time tested principals that through repetitive training have now become my natural thoughts.

Good training always improves your likelihood of surviving a genuine self-defense situation.

------------------
“This is my rifle, there many like it but this one is mine …”

[This message has been edited by Scott Evans (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top