Opinion or fact?

Their are of plenty of after-action reports...

where LE lived to tell the rest of us what happened. The good trainers listen...and control or adjust the training program according to the reality of the street.

The other trainers make up and then sell you on their own program, or they listen to those good trainers whom know better.
 
Reading

The other trainers make up and then sell you on their own program, or they listen to those good trainers whom know better.
Click to expand...
It kind of makes you wonder if you should read _any_ gun magazine. :(

There is actually one writer I read who _always_ makes sense to me. He writes very well (would get great grades in a technical writing class test) and includes more detail and explanations of underlying reasons for things. :)

But is that a good criterion to go by? :confused:

BTW, he taught me to grip a handgun tighter and more consistently. :p (Some, maybe many of you will recognize who I am talking about.)
 
JimL

No offence, I am having a hard time following your points, must be my old age and too much wild turkey.

Kindly point out in which post I said one should not train or practice.
Click to expand...

I made no such reference. In simple terms what I was suggesting is "if it doesn't work for you, then throw it away, and keep looking for something that will."
 
I am having a hard time following your points,
Click to expand...
There probably is no point. I just got irked when he declared genuine gun fighting was different from competition and proposed to put it right - then lapsed into babble.
 
and here I was thinkin’ it might be middle-age and Makers Mark.:)

A +1 to find what works for you.

I can see merit to using cover and movement as well as maintaining a stable platform and full view of surroundings. Depends a lot on what you’re facing, and what you’re comfy with, imo.
 
How is anyone getting the idea that I'm against training????
Click to expand...

It may not be that you are against training, but given the logic of your article expert that noted comptetition is unlike real fighting, training is also unlike real fighting.
 
He impressed me by saying early on that real world gun fights had almost nothing in common with competitive shooting. (You do, of course, point and shoot in both.)
Click to expand...
If anything competitive shooting will get people practicing drawing their gun, doing magazine changes, using cover/
A question for the folks on this forum. How many of our members practice drawing their weapon, doing re-loads, and using cover?
 
If anything competitive shooting will get people practicing drawing their gun, doing magazine changes, using cover/
Click to expand...
So because I said competition is not synonymous with real gun fighting now I'm against competition?
 
Well I think we all know what they say about opinions...

I believe that a person involved in competitive shooting will have a huge advantage over a person not so involved if engaged in a real world shooting.

IMO there is no magic formula, or standard tactic's that guarantee survival in a shooting. Other than practice, practice practice, and situational awareness. A competetive shooter will have the advantage of intimate familiarity of his firearm, muscle memory, and good shooting habits.

Glenn Dee.
 
Something to remember: A lot of the anti-target shooting bias has its roots in an era when target shooting (a la facing 90 degrees from the target with one hand in the pocket) was the norm in training, and good folks were getting killed despite their relative prowess at target shooting. Folks speculated as to why, and the bias emerged. These days, the pendulum having swung a few times, we understand that it isn't an all or nothing affair.
 
Back to the original post:

Weaver: when I came on as a LEO 21 years ago, Weaver was the preferred stance - isosceles came back in vogue several years after. One of the big advantages of the Weaver stance was it allowed you to better use cover such as door frames and walls inside a residence when you were serving search or arrest warrants. The isosceles position led you to expose more of your shoulder and upper body. Not as big a consideration in a CCW context, but as you said, this guy was LE.

Corners become a big deal when you give chase in a LE context. Best place for a running bad guy to lay in wait. Keyholing, or slicing the pie were routinely taught for this. "Staying away from corners" - valid enough, but could probably be stated better. Once again, not a big thing in a CCW context, as you should not be giving chase.

Shooting on the move is tough, even at moderate ranges. I've seen some guys manage it at kind of a fast walk, but haven't seen anybody hit consistently at a jog, much less an all out run - and this is on a range without the adrenaline pumping. Most shooters are better served by shooting, then running, stopping & shooting again if necessary.

Kind of a matter of perspective.
 
Weaver: when I came on as a LEO 21 years ago, Weaver was the preferred stance - isosceles came back in vogue several years after. One of the big advantages of the Weaver stance was it allowed you to better use cover
Click to expand...
Perhaps it depends on how you define Weaver. Actually something related to isosceles (center) is readily converted right or left depending on what side the cover is on. The actual words are meaningless on the ground. Imagine someone thinking, I must keep both arms straight when I look around this corner. Not gonna happen in reality - assuming a modicum of common sense.

Most shooters are better served by shooting, then running, stopping & shooting again if necessary.
Click to expand...
Oh my! Dance around then shoot!! Dance around then shoot!! (Just joking. "Dance around" were that writer's [careless] words.) :D:D:D
 
If the “proper” way to do a thing keeps switching back and forth it’s a good indication that neither one is right.
 
Once again, not a big thing in a CCW context, as you should not be giving chase.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you need to give chase and then it is a big deal.

Most shooters are better served by shooting, then running, stopping & shooting again if necessary.
Click to expand...

Most probably are. Then again, most don't go to the range more than a couple or four times a year an even then of those that do, many do it for reasons other than practicing any sort of defensive skills. Based on what I have seen in CHL classes which are comprised of people ahead of the general population curve because they have taken grand steps toward self defense preparation by being able to carry concealed, less than 10% of those who have a license to carry concealed practice more than a couple of times a year and a bunch only practice before they need to quality, like a lot of cops.

So when we talk about "most shooters," it should be on the table that we are talking about a group composed of the people who practice the least, who have the lowest skill set, lowest training, etc.

For "most shooters," there will never be a gun fight or a situation where they have to use a gun in self defense even though many may have gotten into guns after something bad had happened to them. For the few people in the larger group of "most shooters" who do end up needing a gun for self defense, most will only need the most rudimentary operating and skill level base to be a successful gun user as they are shooting at interview distances and can hit the target regardless of sight pictures, trigger control, shooting stance, etc. and even then, to be considered successful in their endeavors, they need only have survived the encounter without having hurt any non-bad guys and the bad guy be at least driven away (shot or not). There are a surprising number of self defense shootings where the shooter is successful and either hasn't fired a firearm before or is a non-shooter.

So yes, it is
Kind of a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...
 
If the “proper” way to do a thing keeps switching back and forth it’s a good indication that neither one is right.
Click to expand...
Nothing is always right. The real world is a continuous stream of adaptations.
 
Find what works for you...

You might want to just look into what people are trying to tell you, find out what the circumstances are they are telling you to use that technique in and then pick it apart, have someone you believe has skill in the area you are looking at and have them give the pros/cons and what they would do in that same situation (ask several people). Ask a lot of questions of the instructor and others with similar skills.

Unless it is totally outrageous and unsafe file the information away as a possible option.

That is what I would do. If you start hitting the instructor up with a lot of questions and he says "Because I said so" or gets flustered then he/she might not be the person you want giving you instruction. If he or she can give you a good explanation or provide personal experience where that tactic worked and others didn't then that is a good thing. A great thing is when they see a flaw in their instruction and thank you for pointing it out and adjusts accordingly...
 
However, if you have the fundamental in grained in you subconscious, its gonna kick in whether you know it or not. You always revert to your training, if you don't have the training, or don't practice, then you miss. If you've developed good habits of marksmanship fundamentals then your habits, and training, and practice are gonna kick it. Habits come from practice.
Click to expand...

"You will fight the way you have trained." When it happens for real the fight will be over before you know it started, only later will you remember what you did right or wrong.
 
You might want to just look into what people are trying to tell you
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that an awful lot of people here have looked into an awful lot of things and have an awful lot of experience. There are hunters and/or military and/or LEO's. I, for one, have been all three in past decades. Mind telling us who you were aiming your comment at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top