Toss the timer.... Rob P. & Rob L . Worlds Colide

[WVsig]

The argument some are trying to make, taken to the extreme, would argue there is no purpose in training with your firearm or having familiarity with it because those things are not really central to the use of a firearm in deadly force.

Do I think the majority of what is done in shooting games translates over to self defense? No I don't. Do I think at least some of the skills in shooting games translate to self defense? Most certainly I do.

In regards to the timer issues? The timer is part of the games and likely plays too large a part in scoring for some segments. Do I think half a second is going to matter in MOST self defense scenarios? Nope. Probably not. You really should spend your limited training time honing other skills. Do I think it may matter in SOME? Yep - and if it does matter it is REALLY going to matter


In martial arts we had a group of students that would often go from point fighting to "controlled contact" where we realized the hits were going to be much harder and the risk of injury much higher. From time to time you would get a student who would be very good at point fighting who would come over to practice and his or her skills would suddenly devolve when hit. However MOST of the time the students who were really good at point fighting were also really good at "controlled contact" because the skills translated.

The skills from the gun games WILL help you in a self defense situation - at least some of the skills if the individual using them is able to carry them into the situation. Familiarity with a firearm, accuracy while moving, reloading, and speed are useful skills and the more these skills are part of muscle memory the more concentration an individual will be able to put into the mental side of surviving the conflict.

For the record I don't participate in gun games. That many people handing that many firearms that often puts me in situation I don't want to be in. "What can go wrong eventually will go wrong given a large enough sample" type concern. Still to deny that the skills, at least some of them, one is honing in those competitions could be useful in self defense seems to me to be an argument that locks face validity.

EDIT: make a list of skills needed to survive an armed encounter that required lethal force. While the skills honed in the gun games may not make the top of the list they cannot be entirely left off the list either.

I don't think people are taking to the extreme. I think I personally am trying to illustrate that there is a difference in approach and mindset when you are transitioning from competition style shooting to defensive style shooting. I am not saying that some of the skills do not translate. They do. Shooting on the move, trigger control, sight alignment, sight picture, engaging multiple targets etc.... What I am getting at is that the way you implement those skills in competition is artificial and maybe even counter to the way you should implement them in a defensive handgun situation.

I shot a class with a young Vermont State Trooper. He was an excellent shot. He loved to go fast. He was a competition guy. He was also a very accurate shot. He was one of the better students in the class. The trainer however used him as an example of how competition shooting and living by the timer can trip you up. The instructor set out 4 targets. He had the Trooper line up and shoot the 4 targets with 2 shot each just like he would do in competition. He told him to shoot as fast as he could. Kid shot them lights out fast. The instructor then told him to he had to shoot the same target but instead of 2 in each put 2 in the 1st 3 in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd and 1 in the 4th. Same number of rounds with the same instructions. Shoot it as fast as you can. He still shot it fast but he put 4 in the 2nd target and 2 in the last because he when he is shooting fast he shoots in multiples of 2. Competition has created a training scar which may or may not help him in a real fight. His muscle memory and the need for speed over road his brain.

Watch the second video I posted today. No one on this board wants to get into gun fight with Rob L. but watch how his competition approach to the known mapped out problem he faces puts himself in harms way multiple times in his first run. The things that make him one of the best competition shooters in the world would have possibly gotten him killed if any of his cardboard attackers had been reasonably proficiency with a gun. Competition tells you to find a spot where you can engage multiple targets from one position saving you time. In a real fight this would get you killed. The second time he shoots is it is much smoother but he still makes mistakes.

Rob P never puts himself in a position that exposes himself to more than one attacker. He uses cover and engages one attacker at a time and addressing each threat as he is exposed to it before moving on to the next. Completely different approach.

I guess that is the crux of my thoughts on this. I see it so many times where people ask how do I get better at shooting a handgun? How do I improve my draw? How to I learn to shoot faster so I can defense myself and most of the time the answer is shoot matches. You can learn all of those things from shooting IDPA and if you are good at IDPA you will be good at defensive shooting. I think that this is some of the worst advice people can give. It puts a premium on speed. It gives someone the false impression that if they can stage and IDPA stage they can shoot from cover, shoot on the move in a way that will not get them killed in a "real" gunfight. I know people will disagree with me but I see so many people really obsessed with the timer because of the competition mindset and think it is a mistake. YMMV

The timer is a good tool to use to measure some skills and is great for development of certain things but our time or score will not matter if you life is on the line.

 

[Lohman446]

The instructor then told him to he had to shoot the same target but instead of 2 in each put 2 in the 1st 3 in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd and 1 in the 4th. Same number of rounds with the same instructions. Shoot it as fast as you can. He still shot it fast but he put 4 in the 2nd target and 2 in the last because he when he is shooting fast he shoots in multiples of 2. Competition has created a training scar which may or may not help him in a real fight

So how would this have changed the outcome of a "real" encounter?

 

[OldMarksman]

The argument some are trying to make, taken to the extreme, would argue there is no purpose in training with your firearm or having familiarity with it because those things are not really central to the use of a firearm in deadly force.

Not at all. The discussion is about the value of competition.

So how would this have changed the outcome of a "real" encounter?

Very simply put, if he fired in multiples of two because that's how he did it in competition, and if firing in multiples of two did not happen to meet the need in that " 'real' encounter", that "training scar" may affect the outcome adversely.

 

[Lohman446]

Very simply put, if he fired in multiples of two because that's how he did it in competition, and if firing in multiples of two did not happen to meet the need in that " 'real' encounter", that "training scar" may affect the outcome adversely.

But it did meet the "requirements" as put out. He shot one target four times (rather than three) and one target twice (rather than once). Because this was a quick fire drill without instruction to redetermine threat level between each shot the dangers of the "extra" shots are diminished. This is not "he fired one more shot than was necessary after his target ceased to be a threat." Yes those are two more shots in the air but both were, presumably, on target.

EDIT

Not at all. The discussion is about the value of competition.

Are we discussing the value of competition or the value of competing? Honest question because it does end up requiring some adjustments to my argument. My argument has been predicated on the idea that participating in the competition helped one hone valuable skills though the competition itself may give incorrect weight to the various skills involved. Thus I have argued, or intended to, that the value was in competing and not necessarily in the competition itself.

 

[OldMarksman]

But it did meet the "requirements" as put out

He did as he was told. No one tells a defender that to do in the real world.

.

...the value was in competing and not necessarily in the competition itself.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Let's reread what WVsig has said:

• ....there is a difference in approach and mindset when you are transitioning from competition style shooting to defensive style shooting.
• ...some of the skills...translate. ...Shooting on the move, trigger control, sight alignment, sight picture, engaging multiple targets etc....
• ...the way you implement those skills in competition is artificial and maybe even counter to the way you should implement them in a defensive handgun situation.

To cut to the chase,

...in competition the "Stages" are staged. You get to look them over, plan and game them to shoot them fast. This staging the stage so you can shoot a faster time puts you in positions that you would never put yourself in if you find yourself in a defensive pistol situation.

In a real defensive situation, you will not expect to be shooting anyone; you will not plan to do so; and you will strive not to beat a timer, but to strike vital zones as many times as may be necessary against an emerging, moving target--while you can.

That's what the video in the OP is all about.

 

[WVsig]

So how would this have changed the outcome of a "real" encounter?

That is sort of the point you do not know. In a defensive situation you put exactly as many rounds into someone that it takes to put them down. Ideally no more no less.

When the Trooper shot the "wrong" number of rounds it was not about the "out come". It was about illustrating that you become what you train. If you train to shoot as fast as you can putting 2 shots into every target like the competition world asks then after a while that is what you will do instinctively.

What it does demonstrate is that when you train a certain way for a certain goal it becomes ingrained in you. You build muscle and reflexive memory which when put under the stress of time or someone shooting at you you tend to revert to.

I think that it cannot be said enough times that "you are what you train." For good or for bad. The instructor who was running this training course also followed up the the "you are what you train" mantra with which is why "don't train stupid S**T. I am not saying that training for competition is stupid. I am trying to show that shooting competition and shooting in a defense situation are 2 different skillsets which require 2 different mindsets and approaches.

 

[Lohman446]

I am trying to show that shooting competition and shooting in a defense situation are 2 different skillsets which require 2 different mindsets and approaches.

I agree with you there. The skillset, taken in its entirety, is different.

However SOME individual components of the skill set do occur in each skill set.

Does shooting competition alone prepare you for a real life defensive encounter? Nope

Are SOME (not all) of the skills honed in competition valuable in a real life defensive encounter? Yep.

 

[WVsig]

I agree with you there. The skillset, taken in its entirety, is different.

However SOME individual components of the skill set do occur in each skill set.

Does shooting competition alone prepare you for a real life defensive encounter? Nope

Are SOME (not all) of the skills honed in competition valuable in a real life defensive encounter? Yep.

And some of the skills you develop and create by shooting competition teach you habits that will get you killed in a real gun fight.

 

[jmorris]

You must be proficient, reasonably fast shooter and reasonably fast on the draw but your decision making and decision process is what is going to win the day.

I would say if your decision making has gotten you to the point you can justify SD, it might be suspect depending on a number of variables. Like a lot of the threads where folks are walking or standing around with their head in a cloud, not paying attention to what is going on around them.

That said if you can’t get a firearm into action and make hits, it is not much more use to you than yelling or running away.

What is “reasonably” fast for shooting and draw if say you have someone already pointing a gun at you vs you noticed someone pulling into your property late at night and you are not expecting any visitors?

 

[WVsig]

I would say if your decision making has gotten you to the point you can justify SD, it might be suspect depending on a number of variables. Like a lot of the threads where folks are walking or standing around with their head in a cloud, not paying attention to what is going on around them.

That said if you can’t get a firearm into action and make hits, it is not much more use to you than yelling or running away.

What is “reasonably” fast for shooting and draw if say you have someone already pointing a gun at you vs you noticed someone pulling into your property late at night and you are not expecting any visitors?

I am not sure what your question is. I am a bit tired but I do not understand your first sentence? It makes no sense to me.

 

[JohnKSa]

I never pigeon-holed the example to mean only self defense/LE engagements.

Yes, I realize that--part of the point I was making was that you should have because "military tactics and rules of engagement are quite different" than those for self-defense/LE shootings.

There is such a thing as a "bad shoot" in combat.

Of course there is. But that doesn't change the fact that the military plays by a very different set of rules than a self-defense shooter, or even LE must abide by. And that they can operate with a different set of tactics given that they almost invariably operate with a significantly different level of support.

It's also clear that my point - that an instructor can only suppose what a self defense situation may be like if they haven't been in one - was lost.

Personal experience is not a pre-requisite for being able to provide information/training that "transfers to the real world". As mentioned, it's not supposition when someone suggests that ingesting significant levels of strychnine is a very bad idea--even if the person offering the advice has never personally experienced the effects of strychnine poisoning.

It's one thing to say that one can't know exactly what a self-defense situation feels like until one has been in that situation. It's another to say that without that experience, one can't provide useful training that transfers to the real world.

If they don't know...

It is a mistake to equate personal experience and knowledge, or conversely, lack of personal experience with lack of knowledge. Education and training would all be useless if only personal experience counted. It's precisely because education and training have been shown to be valuable that we know people can aquire knowledge without having to live through something personally.

I would be interested to find out what the other 10 questions were. I would be surprised if there wasn't at least one question about experience in use of deadly force.

Here are all 12 questions the way Cirillo lays them out in the book. Although he lists them out as 8, he explicitly discusses them as being 12 because some of the items on the numbered list contain multiple questions.

1. Are you a competitive shooter?
2. Have you competed in major matches and placed and won awards?
3. Can you perform well under pressure or fear?
4. Are you a hunter? Have you shot big game?
5. Do you like outdoor physical sports?
6. Do you collect firearms? Do you reload ammo?
7. If you are over 28, are you married? Do you have children?
8. Do you like people? Do you attend civic affairs?

The rationale behind each question is discussed and explained. It's a good book, and not just for that single chapter that discusses the qualities they found made a good gunfighter.

these are the questions asked of those wishing to be on a surveillance team? are you kidding me?

They put the list of questions together based on correlations of observed qualities of officers who performed well in the initial selection.

It's important to keep in mind that it's hard to find people with real gunfighting experience, even on large police forces. Even many justified self-defense/LE shootings don't really qualify as true gunfights.

You know for a fact that if a candidate hadn't had an encounter with use of deadly force that they simply wouldn't be considered?

Who said anything remotely like that? It wasn't that they wouldn't pick people with deadly force encounter experience, it was that they would have had an unworkably small pool to work from if they made that a criterion. Also, it's a mistake to think that just because someone gets shot at and survives that they must be a good gunfighter. There's a video online showing two women defending their store against an armed robber. They survived and prevailed, but the video show it clearly wasn't due to their gunfighting prowess or coolness under pressure.

I think I personally am trying to illustrate that there is a difference in approach and mindset when you are transitioning from competition style shooting to defensive style shooting. I am not saying that some of the skills do not translate. They do.

Yes, there are things that translate well, some that aren't especially useful, and some that can actually be harmful.

 

[Unconventional]

Yes, I realize that--part of the point I was making was that you should have because "military tactics and rules of engagement are quite different" than those for self-defense/LE shootings.Of course there is. But that doesn't change the fact that the military plays by a very different set of rules than a self-defense shooter, or even LE must abide by. And that they can operate with a different set of tactics given that they almost invariably operate with a significantly different level of support.

Very good point. I only partially disagree and only to the extent that it would become nit-picky.

Personal experience is not a pre-requisite for being able to provide information/training that "transfers to the real world".

and

It is a mistake to equate personal experience and knowledge, or conversely, lack of personal experience with lack of knowledge. Education and training would all be useless if only personal experience counted.

I agree. My point is that it (experience) can validate and qualify what is being taught. Not that it's a requirement. I am very fortunate to have some training from an ex-police officer who is a world class shooter. He'd never been in a deadly force encounter - and I wouldn't trade his shooting tips for anything.

Who said anything remotely like that? It wasn't that they wouldn't pick people with deadly force encounter experience, it was that they would have had an unworkably small pool to work from if they made that a criterion.

From post #32:

That would have eliminated most of the potential candidates on the force.

I am under the impression that there were no right answers to the selection for those officers. It was a 'whole-man' assessment. I think you misread my post. (It's getting to the dizzying point of who said what)

There's a video online showing two women defending their store against an armed robber. They survived and prevailed, but the video show it clearly wasn't due to their gunfighting prowess or coolness under pressure.

And thank goodness they're not offering instruction on how to survive a deadly force encounter.

 

[JohnKSa]

From post #32:

Ah, I see. I took that to mean that restricting the entrants to only those who had survived a gunfight would result in eliminating virtually everyone from eligibility.

I am under the impression that there were no right answers to the selection for those officers.

Cirillo makes it sound like he believes the higher the number of yes answers, the more likely a person is to survive a gunfight. In fact, he winds up the chapter by providing a hard threshold (7 yes answers) above which he believes a person "can make it" and says that if a person answers yes to all 12 they are "likely to walk away from almost any armed encounter".

It's not the list I would have made, but it's hard to argue with a solid record of success.

And thank goodness they're not offering instruction on how to survive a deadly force encounter.

Indeed. Because we have video, it's unlikely that such a thing would happen. But I have no doubt that there are trainers out there touting personal experience from similar encounters where success is due to a combination of luck and even more incompetence on the part of the attacker. It's tempting for people to assume that experience always equates to valuable knowledge or a knack for training. In fact, it's often the case that neither assumption is true.

 

[pax]

Apropos of nothing, I gave birth to five children but I sure as heck hope nobody would take professional-level advice from me about prenatal care, labor, or childbirth. The only things I know about those things are the things I learned from personal experience -- and even though I had five and not just one, and even though everything I learned was well-earned, there's just not enough personal experience there to turn me into a medical professional.

On the other hand, the specialist who delivered my youngest child had never been pregnant or given birth. (He lacked some basic qualifications for that.) But he had studied many different aspects of pregnancy, labor, and delivery -- including all the various ways everything could go catastrophically wrong and what to do about it.

A person who has deeply studied these issues would be a better person to turn to for help with medical issues related to delivering a baby than to someone who had 'only' given birth.

But a medical professional who doesn't study and listen to the experience of the people who have actually been there & done that, isn't studying at all. And isn't going to do a good job in teaching others, either.

Same thing with gunfights.

pax

 

[TailGator]

I had talked myself out of offering this analogy, but changed my mind after Pax's post:

No two medical cases are ever the same, nor are any two surgeries identical. Doctors, veterinarians, and other medical professionals are trained in basic principles that are then applied in different combinations to deal with the unique circumstances of each case, with, hopefully, increasing proficiency as they gain experience. It seems to me that firearms training is similar in the fact that basic skills need to be acquired and practices so that they are available to meet the needs of individual situations as they occur. Even a firearm trainer who has been in a gunfight will not have been in the same gunfight that you might experience, but the skills they teach will, if they are good at their job, be useful and applicable to you in your time of need.

 

[Jeff22]

I shoot both USPSA and IDPA fairly regularly and shoot PPC about once a year. USPSA and IDPA can be considered as shooting skill building exercises that have some training value and can be very entertaining. Any competitive event, of necessity, will not be able to duplicate the dynamics of a real gunfight.

But, depending upon the course of fire, there CAN be training value in the process, if you are shooting the IDPA classifier(s) or a USPSA classifier that measures basic marksmanship and gun-handling skills. USPSA and IDPA classifiers and most IDPA courses of fire are at least semi-realistic in the marksmanship challenges presented.

In such competitions I've always used whatever my duty gun was at the time. Currently I most often use a Glock 19 in CCP in IDPA matches and a Glock 22 in production class in USPSA matches.

I've been shooting USPSA since 1978 and IDPA since 2001. At the local level.

I particularly like the USPSA Classifiers and the IDPA Classifier match(s) as methods to test basic skills. Also, several of the local USPSA clubs have LOTS more steel and movers and bobbers and so forth than what we have available at the police range, so the courses of fire they use on match days are much more innovative that what we can do during in-service training at the PD.

You'll get out of it what you put into it. Be safe and have fun with it. At the very least, shooting in matches can show you which skills to need to practice more . . .

Many clubs are now on the web and some post the course descriptions for upcoming stages on their web site. If clubs near you do this, you'll find this to be very useful. I don't look at the courses of fire in advance to figure out a "game plan" on how to shoot the course, but rather to get an idea of what skills I might need to practice before the match. (practice strong hand only and weak hand only shooting to start with, and engaging multiple targets from behind high & low cover)

Also, some clubs are more practically oriented, and some have more members who shoot purely as a competitive activity (usually the USPSA shooters, BUT NOT ALWAYS) and by looking at posted courses of fire you can determine which orientation the club has and if the matches they run have any value for what you're trying to accomplish. (Sometimes I'll look at the posted courses for one of the local clubs and if three out of five stages are "run & gun" 32 round field courses [which don't fit in with my training goals very well] I'll just go do something else that day . . . )

 

[1-DAB]

i help design some of our IDPA stages, and review others that have been designed by others, offering input and making sure they are legal and doable stages for our range.

when i design a stage, i try to think about what skills i want to test with that stage.

we have one coming up that forces you to shoot one handed (you have to carry something with your other hand that is large and weighty). so have you practiced one handed shooting? hope so.

also around cover, both sides, and moving targets, and moving yourself. all good skills to know and work on and be ready for exam/match day.

 

[Nanuk]

In other words, the winner of an actual gunfight isn't always going to be the one who can draw and shoot the fastest or even the most accurately. It will most likely be the one who thinks and reacts the best.

Without accuracy, you do not have hits. Competition shooters do better in real life shootings than those with little training or experience with their guns. It is about consistency, If you are counting on rising to the occasion, you won't.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Without accuracy, you do not have hits.

That statement was "most accurately." You even quoted it. And without the most accuracy, you can still land hits and they may very well be very effective, though potentially less lethal. Instead of COM shots, you may have shoulder, gut, arm, hip, leg shots.

Given that with handguns, the most common ballistic impact 'stop' accompished is non-lethal and non-incapacitating, even less accurate shots are often quite effective in fights.

 

[Nanuk]

Good point......but, where are you going to get volunteers for your training sessions?

It plays out every day on the streets of America. They had a saying in the old west "the Dead mans 5 seconds" Split seconds are almost meaningless when a BG can receive a fatal wound and stay in the fight for minutes. Tactics are as important as anything, get to cover, get a solid hit or 10 and stay behind good cover.

Force on force done correctly is a good training tool.