The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: ske1eter on January 17, 2010, 07:52:28 PM
-
It was an interesting episode the past week on SWAT Magazine TV when the question of whether downrange training (may have the term wrong) was proper or not. I have attended one of the training classes where we did indeed go "downrange". Though it was quite a departure from what most are given for safe range practices during training I never felt in any sort of danger. Every one off the rules of safe gun handling were observed. All students were given the opportunity to participate under their own accord and no one that chose to avoid this facet of training was going to chastised or demeaned in any way. At no point in the training did I did I believe that I put anyone else in danger. Yes, there have been some sensational video placed on YouTube to try and bias the sheep's opinion. Indeed, the subject is controversial but that may be what makes it worthwhile. Though the "poll" amongst the expert didn't make the practice appear very popular, I do appreciate that SWAT Magazine TV broached the subject. This alone makes the program worth watching.
-
It has no value, it is nothing but unsafe grandstanding designed to part gullible people from their money.
-
It has no value, it is nothing but unsafe grandstanding designed to part gullible people from their money.
That's a very interesting comment given that I didn't know what I was getting into when I signed up for the class. Gullible, according to your vernacular I suppose.
-
I haven't been through any of these kind of courses but I have had the fortune to observe. If you are someone in a career that requires being shot at and shooting back especially in a team surrounding then I can see the viability of this kind of training. Due to the fact that in the field your reaction to a lethal threat could require you to take actions that aren't "SAFE". Train as you fight. In this case you can simulate many scenarios that a square range practice can't.
-
If you want to get shot at go to Afghanistan, They make it realistic, they ARE trying to hit you. If you need to do Force on force training, use air soft or simunitions and do REAL training.
Being down range when others are shooting is how that US Marshal got himself killed at Ruby Ridge.
-
If you want to get shot at go to Afghanistan, They make it realistic, they ARE trying to hit you. If you need to do Force on force training, use air soft or simunitions and do REAL training.
Being down range when others are shooting is how that US Marshal got himself killed at Ruby Ridge.
+10. Its just stupid. What's the point? You aren't really afraid, because you know they aren't trying to hit you. The only fear is the "oops" factor, in which case you get nominated for a Darwin Award. Thing is, I played this game in ROTC where we had to low crawl under wire with someone firing an M-60 over our heads. The noise and tracers were distracting, but fear? Not so much. Frankly I think you get better training in adreneline control playing paintball. There you really do worry about getting hit, and you have to shoot faster and straighter than the other guy to win. Plus, there's the whole not getting killed by a dumbass factor.....
FQ13 who sees this as a classic example of "hold my beer and watch this". I'll pass.
-
Seen the training and I will not participate. I have seen enough oh crap things happen not to do that. I do not see the value of it. Like Tom said go to Afghanistan and that is as real as it gets.
-
Thanks for your thoughts about the show, Ske.
Unfortunately, not everyone has seen the piece we did. If nothing else, I think that the "panel of experts" as a group made it clear that there is a big difference between putting a novice downrange as part of a 2 day pistol course and have SWAT Team members in front of a 180 degree line while training for team ops in a house.
In your case, I don't know what the "point" of the drill was supposed to be, but if you weren't ever scared you can can't claim "acclimating to the conditions of combat" or whatever as the point. In that case, there is no reason for the danger of the drill, IMO. If there was something else that was supposed to be happening, let us know. In fact, an exact description of the drill and circumstances of your "downrange" experience would be great.
-RJP
-
I would let the SAS do their famous live fire hostage rescue by shooting targets around me. I'll pass on anybody less qualified winging rounds around me.
I can see the value of hearing shots go by you as a form of stress harding but the risk to reward is not there for me. I have had people shoot in my general direction without much chance of hitting me and found it sort of funny. I doubt I would have laughed if the rounds were impacting around me.
-
+10. Its just stupid. What's the point? You aren't really afraid, because you know they aren't trying to hit you. The only fear is the "oops" factor, in which case you get nominated for a Darwin Award. Thing is, I played this game in ROTC where we had to low crawl under wire with someone firing an M-60 over our heads. The noise and tracers were distracting, but fear? Not so much. Frankly I think you get better training in adreneline control playing paintball. There you really do worry about getting hit, and you have to shoot faster and straighter than the other guy to win. Plus, there's the whole not getting killed by a dumbass factor.....
FQ13 who sees this as a classic example of "hold my beer and watch this". I'll pass.
Gee I actually agree with these guys. A general once said,"there is nothing we do in peace time that should cost a man his life"
-
I would let the SAS do their famous live fire hostage rescue by shooting targets around me. I'll pass on anybody less qualified winging rounds around me.
I would submit that even that drill is BS. The only people it trains are the "hostages". They learn that in a spec ops entry you stay very f*cking still and keep your hands visible. Good for them, if they are taken hostage their odds of surival just went up. In real life? The hostages will be panicking, screaming, and running for the door. It does nothing but instill the troopers with a hieghtened awareness of how serious the game is. This is worthwhile, but not worth chancing lives to Mr. Murphy's tender clutches.
FQ13 who is no expert, but will never look at the muzzle end of a gun voluntarily. Stuff happens, I don't want it to happen to me.
-
I already know what bullets whizzing by my head sounds like....I think I'll pass on hearing it again.
-
I already know what bullets whizzing by my head sounds like....I think I'll pass on hearing it again.
Amen and +10. Some things cannot and should not be simulated, because the more "real" you try to make it, the greater the odds that someone is going home in a body bag and and someone else is leaving in handcuffs. For what?
FQ13
PS In my inexpert opinion, getting shot at in earnest is like getting kicked in the balls. You don't prepare for that by inviting your friends to kick you in the balls so you get used to it. Instead, you try to avoid it, and learn to play hurt if you can't. The idea of "training" by inviting the possibility of the very thing we spend money and time trying to avoid seems perverse. Maybe that's just me, what do I know? Still, I know being "down range" from a hostile is a bad thing. I don't need or want a class that reinforces this basic concept.
-
I'm just wanting to clarify my post earlier. I don't think for any reason downrange training should be utilized by casual shooters for any reason. But if your daily routine at work involves you entering and clearing a home or counter terrorism (obviously this is about .01% of the population) then some forms of this style of training may be appropriate. Drills that involve shooting and moving as a team make sense. I think that for the most part the training that is going on out there utilizing these drills is an unnecessary risk. But as I saw with the Jefferson county special response team this past summer. It was utilized well. I don't think it should be used as a standard by any means but I do think there is a very very small niche that it fills.
-
As far as I know the SAS only do the live hostage thing to impress VIP's.
-
FQ +10
-
I think a room clearing scenario with live fire and a team shooting around you would be more beneficial. Getting used to gunshots close to you not at you would be better IMO.
-
I watched a special on the FBI HRT and they use one of their own during a live fire HR drill. Gets them used to that sort of thing. I agree that it is not for civies. I would also hesitate to do a house clearing with a stranger or strangers unless I had spent a lot of time with them during the class, and maybe not even then!
Richard
-
Ive been watching "shadow Warriors" on history channel. The host is a former SAS . He goes to different countries and trains with the elite. Also goes on raids, very good show. I wouldnt hesitate to go in with these people.
-
Didn't see the show but by reading been there, done that....
Agree that it is not needed for those that do not work in teams or for the average shooter. It is very specialized training where you get confidence in your team mates ability to place rounds on target one meter in front of you. My CQB course was two months long and I worked with those guys for years before, during (whole company went) and after.
CD
-
Not a fan of downrange training, but I do tend to agree with Combat Diver re: high-end military team training. In a civilian context. let me give you another reason why downrange training is a bad idea (one that I think Combat Diver will identify with)...it creates a FALSE sense in the student's mind that he or she has "been there and done that" when the fact is the student has done nothing of the sort. I, too, have heard the bullet that didn't hit me go whipping by my head and thunk into a nearby tree...I don't think it made me a better person. In fact, it made me seriously consider wetting myself. I don't believe that experience can be "simulated" in any meaningful way. Perhaps another analogy — as a one-time certified cave diver with a lot of dives in scary places, I could create a cave-diving simulation that would make the students FEEL good about being ready to go into the caves. But I don't think such a simulation would prepare the student diver for what happens half a mile back into some narrow tunnel when the Schumer hits the fan — the lights tank at the same time, a regulator smacks against a rock wall and goes free-flow, the tunnel silts out, a team member panics and starts thrashing like a hooked salmon. Instead of simulations, cave diving training is a long, grueling regimen in the caves with a seemingly endless focus on "the basics."
Michael B
-
Not a fan of downrange training, but I do tend to agree with Combat Diver re: high-end military team training. In a civilian context. let me give you another reason why downrange training is a bad idea (one that I think Combat Diver will identify with)...it creates a FALSE sense in the student's mind that he or she has "been there and done that" when the fact is the student has done nothing of the sort. I, too, have heard the bullet that didn't hit me go whipping by my head and thunk into a nearby tree...I don't think it made me a better person. In fact, it made me seriously consider wetting myself. I don't believe that experience can be "simulated" in any meaningful way. Perhaps another analogy — as a one-time certified cave diver with a lot of dives in scary places, I could create a cave-diving simulation that would make the students FEEL good about being ready to go into the caves. But I don't think such a simulation would prepare the student diver for what happens half a mile back into some narrow tunnel when the Schumer hits the fan — the lights tank at the same time, a regulator smacks against a rock wall and goes free-flow, the tunnel silts out, a team member panics and starts thrashing like a hooked salmon. Instead of simulations, cave diving training is a long, grueling regimen in the caves with a seemingly endless focus on "the basics."
Michael B
As Hank Hill would say, "Yep."
-
IDIOTIC! My one word description of this training method.
Reminds me of a SGT with Alameda County Sheriff's Dept. that used to have two lines of Deps walking towards each other while shooting at targets... if that makes sense, it is hard to describe. But, again, it too was IDIOTIC!
Or the fairly well known trainer from CA that used to like to stand between targets that his students were shooting at so he could "keep me sharp... keep my edge" Again, this too is IDIOTIC!