tactical training

With all due respect, someone who never took a class talking about tactical training is very much like a virgin talking about sex. Knowing how to shoot and be safe doing it, knowing how to hit game or clay birds/paper targets or steel, competing in combat shooting games is a good basic preparation in many ways but it does not necessarily translate to knowing how to fight successfully with a gun.

Not even formal military or LE training teaches as much as the best instructors out there in the private sector teach. Every private sector class I've ever had included at least a few students who were active duty military or LEOs, there on their own dime, looking to learn more about how to survive and prevail in a gunfight.

I'd wanted to take Louis Awerbuck's basic shotgun class for over a decade, after being a lifelong shotgunner. Work always got in the way. Finally a few years ago after I retired I finally got to go. I wish I'd been able to get into that class 30 years earlier. I was amazed at how much I learned.

No matter how much you know, you can always learn more. The state of the art is a moving target... it's always changing. The POIs change, what the same instructor knows and teaches from year to year changes. There is ALWAYS more to learn.

fwiw,

lpl
 
I have never taken a Tactical Training Class and I never will. I'm not against you people who feel the need to train but it's not for me. I carried a Glock 19 as my duty weapon for 14 years as a Security Officer and had to qualify once a year. The only time I had to remove my gun from my holster was to clean it.
IMO, in a real gunfight for your self defense, there will be no time to use these tactics because things will happen so fast, the fight will be over in just a few seconds. Tactical Training is great for Police/Military people but not really for the average person who just carries for personal protection. You may think I'm crazy but I think all this Tactical stuff is just a waste of time and money. It's your time and your money so have fun!
 
^^ Exactly what I am saying. In real life encounters you will most likely be out in the open and generally exposed with poor cover options and marginal concealment options. Your best bet is training on your draw stroke, shooting from every imaginable position and getting your heart rate up to simulate stress situations.
 
Tactical Training is great for Police/Military people but not really for the average person who just carries for personal protection.
Click to expand...

Have you ever watched what the typical officer involved shooting looks like? More often than not it is a sudden and suprising thing. The truth is, an officer involved shooting isn't much different than a civilian self defens shooting. The main difference is that the officer has a higher probability of being involved in a shooting because he must approach. Usually besides the approach they look pretty much the same.

The point of training is to develop muscle memory and a knowledge base. Once you know the general idea of the dynamics involved you train your body to work in certain ways. If you have good training - and practice - it increases your odds.

A lot of people have survived with no training. I think I'll stack the deck in my favor. Because the truth is, the criminals will not hesitate to stack the odds in their favor.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
A static target is far more vulnerable than a kinetic one

Under the most general of circumstances.. maybe. Every armed conflict is unique and the best possition (moving or fixed) can only be determined in the moment.
Click to expand...

While I agree here I believe that what Nitesites is trying to say is that a moving target is harder to hit than a static one. Obviously running from behind solid cover out into the open isn't helpful.
 
In the programs that I have attended, static shooting is always taught first. It is the basis of all shooting. Usually, shooting from unusual positions is taught next. Shooting while moving is usually one of the last things taught, because it combines the previous skills and is inherently riskier to practice.

This is the logical progression, and most shooters either do not have the interest or do not put in the practice to get to more dynamic practice.
Click to expand...

As a pistol instructor I cannot agree with this more. Static shooting develops the necessary safe handling and shooting skills needed to advance to shooting on the move.
 
While I agree here I believe that what Nitesites is trying to say is that a moving target is harder to hit than a static one.
Click to expand...

Yes, and thank you threegun...

Further, what if there is no cover? Would anyone believe that their only remedy is to simply stand in one spot blazing away, as if they are bulletproof? I vehemently believe that this is not a viable solution...
 
The point of training is to develop muscle memory and a knowledge base. Once you know the general idea of the dynamics involved you train your body to work in certain ways. If you have good training and practice it increases your odds.

A lot of people have survived with no training. I think I'll stack the deck in my favor. Because the truth is, the criminals will not hesitate to stack the odds in their favor.

MikeNice speaks the truth. It's not much different than training in martial arts. A real-life situation is a far cry from a controlled dojo, but the martial arts-trained person will usually have an advantage.
 
The idea is not to move yourself out if the line of fire, the idea is to survive!! Too many individuals buy into the move to cover, draw weapon and defend self/family from cover or try to completely leave the area. Gunfights/ violent attacks are fast, dirty and scary. Logically, you can not out run a bullet. Google fatal shootings and you'll have access to thousands of articles detailing Gunfights/attacks. Where do these attacks occur? I'll help; driveway/front yard, gas station, apartment/ house, basketball court, night club and street.

Now, how many of these places offer adequate cover ( not concealment)? If you can name any, how fast can you run to these positions of cover if you were attack or in near proximity of a gunman? You would mostly be moving on a linear path, do you think I could walk rounds onto you while you were moving to cover? If no cover was available could I put rounds through your concealment?

In most situations you are more likely to survive if you immediately engage and end the threat. This may be from a traditional or non-traditional shooting position. Hit statistics in shootings is historically low, moving and shooting under stress is not recommended.

Lastly, "combat" is mostly static when it comes to shooting. If engage while on the move, you will be moving forward slowly. Think slow is smooth, smooth is fast
Click to expand...

Movement is desirable for many more reasons than just getting to cover or trying to escape a much faster bullet. What can I do to improve my chances of surviving? Use cover, add movement, return fire, and create distance are the ones that directly come to mind. Logically if I Move to Cover while returning fire asap in a direction away from the threat I get the best chances of survival (when caught out in the open).

Engaging and ending the threat? Engaging is controllable its the ending part that gets tricky. Hit percentages drop when under duress and against a moving fighting target. Then you have lack luster stopping power from all normal sized handguns. Then you have the effects of drugs and or willingness to continue to fight from the bad guy. I believe that you are just kidding yourself if you expect to quickly end a threat with a handgun. Most of the videos I have studied bad guys run like jack rabbits after being shot even some of those mortally wounded. If you can run you can fight.

The same movement that makes the bad guy harder to hit makes me safer since I will be harder to hit if I move. The same incoming gunfire that puts me under duress and makes me miss more will likely make my adversary miss more. The same thing that makes a kidney shot hit at 3 yards turn into a complete miss when the distance is doubled works for me as well. If I make it to cover well we all know the importance of cover.
 
Would anyone believe that their only remedy is to simply stand in one spot blazing away, as if they are bulletproof?
Click to expand...

The stand and deliver crowd does for sure. The "I will hit them in the eye with my first shot crowd does. The "My big ole 45ACP will roll them instantly" crowd does.

IMO only those incapable of moving due to disability should stand and deliver. Well perhaps if you are ahead in the reactionary curve you can do so at little negative cost.
 
Yeah, I don't get it. I tried to start a two-way range but I could never get anyone to sign up for the courses I was offering. :D
 
Mudinyeri said:
....I don't get it. I tried to start a two-way range but I could never get anyone to sign up for the courses I was offering....
Click to expand...
Well, we do have them, and they seem to be popular.

A number of schools offer Force-on-Force training using simunitions or air-soft. I recently did a F-o-F exercise using simunitions, and it is a learning experience.

It is best that the student have a solid grounding in the fundamentals first, I believe.
 
Returning fire while moving away is not recommended by any instructor I can think of, it decreases your hit probability and may make you more vulnerable depending on how you retreat. Additionally, every round you fire is a liability, obviously if you don't make it out liability doesn't matter, at least to you.

If I shoot bad guy and he takes off like a jack rabbit then the threat has ended. If you are Leo and pursue the advantage is now yours, providing you are not hit. What videos have you studied, I would like to view as well.

If caught in the open I would not "stand" there and blaze away. I would change levels using the attackers tunnel vision against him and engage from a non-traditional firing position. I specifically train in these positions and while under stress. So far I'm 2 and 0, although I was not using a handgun during those confrontatons.

Threegun, if you frequent the green iguana, have a drink for me, its been a few years since I've been there!
 
Returning fire while moving away is not recommended by any instructor I can think of, it decreases your hit probability and may make you more vulnerable depending on how you retreat. Additionally, every round you fire is a liability, obviously if you don't make it out liability doesn't matter, at least to you.
Click to expand...

Roger Phillips explained a system called the fluid situational response to me years ago as I was unable to attend an actual course. The psychology and hard data behind this system are eye opening. Having the ability to hit while at a run in any direction is a game changer IMO.

Decreasing abilities while under the stress of death goes both ways. This system allows you to go with the bodies natural desire to flee the deadly situation yet still take advantage of all the beneficial effects of duress, movement, and distance.

First priority is keeping the family safe, second is keeping me safe, third is the public. Liability isn't exclusive to those who shoot on the move either. A miss is a liability for all the good guys no matter which way they fight. I contend that being proficient is possible BOTH ways. Plus being able to move allows me to change angles fast potentially eliminating a potentially dangerous angle. You simply don't get that luxury with stand and deliver.

What videos have you studied, I would like to view as well.
Click to expand...

Nothing special just those shoot out videos on TV and the net. Basically any video that captures the shootout and gives an explanation of what happened. I don't look at them like most. I look at them for any potential beneficial information. How did the bad guy or good guy react to being hit? Rounds fired if possible, distance, duration, bad guys movements before and after being shot at etc.

Threegun, if you frequent the green iguana, have a drink for me, its been a few years since I've been there!
Click to expand...

Not a party person sorry. Never been there. Is it on Waters and Manhattan?
 
Well, we do have them, and they seem to be popular.

A number of schools offer Force-on-Force training using simunitions or air-soft. I recently did a F-o-F exercise using simunitions, and it is a learning experience.
Click to expand...

Maybe that was my problem. I was only offering live fire classes. :D
 
Just googled fluid situational response, interesting read. Nothing like the fluid situational response I had after discovering that I was being shot at. I feel that it supports my position depending on your location on the reactionary curve. I think a large part of the disagreement is the idea of cover vs concealment. I have seen rounds go through a lot of different items/structures/vehicles. There is not many things that i would consider cover. I too study similar videos, the thing I learned from time down range and studies is that these things are usually over in seconds. FSR seems to take too much time, unless your initial shots landed buying you more time. We have gotten side tracked, my point is that training on a noving target is over rated. Most people trained or not fire from a static position, it is natural. Training to hit static targets from unusual static positions under high amounts of stress is more realistic to the type of encounter individuals would most likely encounter. Shooting a moving target from a static position > shooting a static target while moving.

3gun, went to the one on westshore
 
Shooting a moving target from a static position > shooting a static target while moving.
Click to expand...

Sure but being shot at by a moving adversary while moving is > being shot at by a moving adversary while in a static position.

From any position we should be able to agree that hitting a moving target is harder than hitting a stationary one. This logically means that if I move it will be harder for the bad guy to hit me. If I have trained to hit a stationary target while moving then my movement has no effect on my accuracy over a trained stand and deliver guy. So I am only left with my adversaries movement and gunfight pressures to degrade my accuracy. Both of which effect both styles of fighting equally.

My combination of movement and return fire all simultaneous BTW also adds distance, yet another advantage.

Stand and deliver fans are no faster at presenting their firearm. Not much more accurate than moving guys, who have trained, at placing fast rounds on target. BTW we can do both as most of us moved from stand and deliver to moving. There is no logical advantage to stand and deliver unless behind cover. The FSR addresses those times when stand and deliver or even advancing on you opponent is the proper response. Only the individual situation can tell us what response is best. If you are a stand and deliver only practitioner and need to move while shooting you are in trouble.
 
FSR seems to take too much time, unless your initial shots landed buying you more time.
Click to expand...

No more time than stand and deliver.

BTW just how fast are you expecting to have your attacker neutralized?
 
threegun said:
...Stand and deliver fans are no faster at presenting their firearm. Not much more accurate than moving guys, who have trained, at placing fast rounds on target. BTW we can do both as most of us moved from stand and deliver to moving. There is no logical advantage to stand and deliver unless behind cover....
Click to expand...
Ultimately I see the goals of training to be long term and to develop as broad and deep a skill set as one can, and is willing to put in the effort to develop.

Of course we all start out standing still with our guns in our hands and shooting stationary targets. Those who wish to pursue their educations may proceed to standing and drawing and shooting at stationary targets; then move while drawing and then shooting; and shooting while moving, and so on to cover the broad range of shooting and tactical skills. One can go as far as he is willing to commit time and effort, and has the threshold physical ability, to go.

The thing is that if we wind up in a violent confrontation, we can't know ahead of time what will happen and how it will happen. And thus we can't know ahead of time what we will need to be able to do to solve our problem.

If we find ourselves in a violent confrontation, we will respond with whatever skills we have available at the time. If all you know how to do is stand there and shoot, that will probably be what you'll do. It might be good enough, or it might not be.

The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the more likely we'll be to be able to respond appropriately and effectively. The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the luckier we'll be.
 
Last edited:
SEK2344

Sir...

You state that your a security guard... And have never taken your firearm out of it's holster other than to clean, or qualify with it. And further that you have never taken any tactical training, and never will.

You sir IMHO are burying your head in the sand. I was a police officer for a little while.... and currently work part time as a security guard (armed). I cant agree with anything you say. Please help me understand a few things... Do you get paid to protect someone or something with the potential of deadly force? Is it possible that at some point someone may make a play for the person, or property your protecting? If this happens are you prepared to defend your protectee, or the valuables? If so are you capable of protecting anything? Do you understand the value of situational awareness?, or the value and difference between cover and concielment? How about the consideration of over-penitration? Do you have a plan for your escape? Do you have disaster plan? Have you some first aid plan or equipment?

All of these are tactical considerations. Being a professional I'd bet dollars to donuts that your client expects this from you. Perhaps you have confused tactical training or classes with mall ninja classes. I dont think anyone is suggesting getting dressed up in various military garb, and running around in the woods till it gets dark and scary. The conversation is about organized training and practice until it becomes second nature. Learning from individuals who research, and work at this full time. Many of these instructors are real world experienced.

Rant to continue...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top