The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: BikerRN on February 27, 2011, 12:45:55 AM
-
Howdy all,
This rant of mine may offend some of you, but I think it needs to be said, so here goes.
The decrease in acceptable accuracy is sickening. If you look at qualification targets today they most often resemble shotgun patterns and not what should be considered accuracy under pressure. While it is a given that most people will have a degradation in their accuracy when involved in a real life encounter, I think to accept such on the range does a disservice to the shooter and society.
If you look at the gunfighters of the past, many were striving for supreme accuracy, and even competed or practiced for such. Thus when they were involved in a real life encounter they were still able to often put the bullets where they needed to go. It's not so important that you hit your target, be it human or game animal, but that you hit something vital. I have seen law enforcement qualifications where anything on the target is considered "acceptable". To me that is disgusting. Is that someone that I want near me when the chips are down?
Granted, qualification is not training, and the two need to be separated. If one is shooting fast and on the move, I would expect the groups to open up. The thing is though, shooting on the move is a more advanced skill, much akin to running an Olympic Track Event. You don't do that before you can walk. Many shooters are in what I consider the crawling stage, and need to move up to walking unsupported, much like a baby begins by crawling, then walking, and finally for those select few babies, running in the Olympics.
I would encourage everybody to spend some time trying to put all their shots in one hole at various ranges and not be happy until they do. The side benefit of that is improved accuracy and ability to focus. It takes a lot of concentration to shoot well at distance and I'm of the opinion that the ability to do so will improve your close range shooting.
Today we have all these "Tacticool" trainers that are trying to reinvent the wheel. Instead of reinventing the wheel why not incorporate more of the basics?
Biker
-
It's late, and I'm only on here because I can't sleep. So, I can't think too indepth at the moment, but go to the link below for some previoius discussion on the topic. It's about finding that balance between pattern size and speed.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=15189.0 (http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=15189.0)
-
I'm not qualified to judge (but hey, its the board ;D). Personally I am a big believer in "good enough". That said, muscle memory is muscle memory, and stress detracts from that. Figure a 1" group on the range becomes 4" in real life. I think practicing basic skills can't be overstressed. Shoot clover leafs first, then run and gun. At th end of the day, those old skills are there to be called on. I'm with Biker, unless you have the basics down to the point where they are a reflex, the tactical stuff is not going to help you much. It boils down to whether you can hit what you aim at while not getting hit. The latter is what tactical training is for. The former? Its about putting holes in paper, and lots of them. Not preaching, just applying what I've learned from being a teacher to SD. If you don't have the basics down, the more advanced stuff is a waste of time.
FQ13
-
I agree with you. I'm from a LE family, dad and uncle, and I've seen some wild ass extremes on the matter. I have stated it here before, not as a testament to my own skill, but to demonstrate the lack of on LE's part, I remember going to the qualification range with my dad and his officers, after they got done qualifying I ran the 'test' and out shot most of them in points, I was twelve. On the other extreme, demonstrating excellent proficiency, a tropper recently put twelve of thirteen rounds in a suspect during a gun fight, he was a combat Marine about a year home from Iraq. Clearly some, but not all, people, be they LE or other wise, do not value marksmanship. The troubling thing is, even folks that very well know they may rely on a weapon several times a day do not care.
And I figure, those first few rounds are going to be the ones that matter the most. You aren't going to be doing all this jive ass slicing the pie, speed reloads, and all that razmataz if you're the one that got shot first.
-
Reminds me of shooting with a couple of friends a few weeks ago. They thought trying to break clay pigeons at 75 yds with a 1911 was insane - until I got 4 with the first mag standing unsupported.
Speed reloads and 'razmataz' is NOT out of the question unless you choose to take yourself out of the fight when injured.
Remember, getting shot does not equal incapacitation unless your CNS has taken major hit.
NEVER STOP FIGHTING!
-
Reminds me of shooting with a couple of friends a few weeks ago. They thought trying to break clay pigeons at 75 yds with a 1911 was insane - until I got 4 with the first mag standing unsupported.
Speed reloads and 'razmataz' is NOT out of the question unless you choose to take yourself out of the fight when injured.
Remember, getting shot does not equal incapacitation unless your CNS has taken major hit.
NEVER STOP FIGHTING!
That IS fun isn't it?
-
I got lucky and was having a good trigger day. ;D
-
I got lucky and was having a good trigger day. ;D
I like shooting clays, they're cheap and you get a nice, simple, easy on these tired old eyes, instant gratification! Got pretty good with my snubby out to 25-30 yards.
Never tried much further than that with my 1911. Lobbing 230 grain ball out 100 yards is quite a hold over! Did hit an 8" steel plate out that far with half a mag one day though..the first half was my ranging, the last half I dinged the bell a few times.
;)
-
Ron Pincus has disagreed with me on this, but I'm a firm believer in "You fight like you train"
If you settle for "touching the silouette counts" in qualification, when you are relitively calm, under stress when you groups open up due to adrenilin and fear you will be lucky to hit at all.
-
I generally shoot for center of chest or head shots on the targets at about 7 yards. For finer work i throw shotgun cases up on the backstop at about 30 yards and shoot at them. Usually at least a 30% hit rate or close enough to scare them silly.
-
I think part of the problem is that Trainers have to get students, and lets face facts, most of the people that go to training classes can't shoot to the level they should be able to, and in order to get repeat business one has to have people feeling good about themselves. Therefore the standards get lowered.
Even if I shoot a "perfect" score, I'm not satisfied. There is always something that could be better, and that is what we should be striving for. The beginner shooting a 4" group at 7 Yards has more room for improvement than the guy or gal shooting one ragged hole at that distance, but they both have room for improvement.
Biker
-
Wet blanket time... :o
The problem with always being able to deliver surgical shots is the logistics of maintaining the skill. If you spend $80 a month on 8 50 rd boxes of 9mm you have about 100 rounds a week to practice. Now you have to add in the amount of fuel you consume getting to the range. If you range is fifteen miles away and you F-150 gets 15 mpgs than you have another $13.40 cost.
$93.40 that may or may not be enough to maintain a skill that statistically will only be used in the rarest of times.
Excellence is costly. Good enough can still save your hide.
-
Many people have brought up great points. This is one of those discussions that can turn in to a "chicken or the egg" scene rather quickly. Do you do the ground work to a high degree before moving on, or do you work on the harder stuff sooner for it to increase your skill?
Personally, I'm a train as you fight guy. Now, I do believe there should be a minimum proficiency prior to moving on to tactical situations. The first reason is safety. The second reason is basic knowledge has to be there in order to make the training worthwhile. I don't see an issue with working 30 minutes on basic shooting skills, then 20 minutes on a tactical scenario (could be as basic as reload with one hand, or whatever). I believe that if you don't work any tactical skill until you can put 10 rounds in a 1" hole at 10 yards, you missed a lot of valuable training time.
I think part of the problem is that Trainers have to get students, and lets face facts, most of the people that go to training classes can't shoot to the level they should be able to, and in order to get repeat business one has to have people feeling good about themselves. Therefore the standards get lowered.
Even if I shoot a "perfect" score, I'm not satisfied. There is always something that could be better, and that is what we should be striving for. The beginner shooting a 4" group at 7 Yards has more room for improvement than the guy or gal shooting one ragged hole at that distance, but they both have room for improvement.
Biker
Biker, I have to disagree with you here. First, your statement that "most" people that go to training classes can't shoot is a huge generalization. Second, training centers have different level classes for this reason. Third, at least for every instructor I've seen, it's about feeling confident, not feeling good (to me they are different). And fourth, If someone is going to carry or own a gun at all, I much prefer they get professional training in any way than not (purpose here is I don't think it's a "lowered standard" issue). Every person comes in at a different level to a class. Unless it is for a qualification, it isn't a "standard" it's a "goal" or "outcome" which is an important distinction.
I do totally agree that we should never be satisfied, and always strive for better performance. Everyone should have that mentality.
As always, just my humble opinion. And good enough can also injure or kill a bystander in an engagement.
Tankerdad
-
There is a HUGE difference between "touching the paper is okay" and "one hole groups"..... how about some balance, as in "Balance of Speed & Precision". It's been discussed here before and probably worth googling for an article or video clip, if you're not familiar with the concept.
It is important to remember that "shooting" isn't just one thing... like driving a car, it can be done many ways for many different reasons. Target Shooting is one of them, defensive training is another.... making bang-bang noises and not worrying much about accuracy is yet another thing that some people do when they go to the range to "shoot". Set realistic goals based on what you want. Since we are in the D&T forum, I think we should rule out target shooting and random expenditures of ammo and focus on realistic training for plausible accuracy needs.
-RJP
-
My $0.02
I think Rob's second edition of Combat Focus Shooting does a much better job of explaining his accuracy and speed balancing act then the first one.
-
There is a HUGE difference between "touching the paper is okay" and "one hole groups"..... how about some balance, as in "Balance of Speed & Precision". It's been discussed here before and probably worth googling for an article or video clip, if you're not familiar with the concept.
It is important to remember that "shooting" isn't just one thing... like driving a car, it can be done many ways for many different reasons. Target Shooting is one of them, defensive training is another.... making bang-bang noises and not worrying much about accuracy is yet another thing that some people do when they go to the range to "shoot". Set realistic goals based on what you want. Since we are in the D&T forum, I think we should rule out target shooting and random expenditures of ammo and focus on realistic training for plausible accuracy needs.
-RJP
True enough, But "touching the paper is okay" is the standard local and county Cops are trained to.
I have been there when they were qualifying. That is an Eye (and ear ) witness statement. On a half scale target at longer range I was holding fist size groups in shorter time than they were spraying the paper.
-
True enough, But "touching the paper is okay" is the standard local and county Cops are trained to.
I have been there when they were qualifying. That is an Eye (and ear ) witness statement. On a half scale target at longer range I was holding fist size groups in shorter time than they were spraying the paper.
Qualifiers are just that. Make the minimum your good to go. Unless you shoot it clean (100%) it only matters if you shoot the score .
I always hate when I see folks practice a qualifier. A qualification is subjective on it's best day. I look at it as where I need to improve segments of my shooting. Practice what you suck at and fix what your doing incorrectly. Your qualification scores will improve.
-
Many good points brought to light here, in my opinion.
I think part of the issue is that while trainers need to get new students, and retain the older ones, there is a reinvention of the wheel aspect at work here as well. I'm not saying that one should only shoot one hole groups, there needs to be a solid basis in the foundations of shooting before moving on to the "cooler" stuff.
That is of course tempered by time. How much time do you have to train? How much time can you devote to the fundamentals before you move forward? It has been my observation that those schooled in accuracy, one hole groups, tend to be better at the tactical stuff as they progress forward. That's where "acceptable accuracy" comes in to play in my opinion.
I think rushing to "acceptable accuracy" too soon is a detriment to surviving a situation and endangers those around you.
Biker
-
Ok, I realize I am a little late for this debate but..... First, I think accuracy is important. Shooting small groups requires strong fundamentals and practice, bothof which are necessary for success. Having said that, I think a lot more are getting into guns as beginners. I have been to the range many times and seen both men and women over thiry who have never shot a gun before. These people may seek out information on the internet, but that doesn't mean they can apply it. I think good enough in training classes allows the beginner to gain knowledge that will allow them to apply information they may receive or gain later. Just my two cents but, its all important.
-
I think part of the problem is that Trainers have to get students, and lets face facts, most of the people that go to training classes can't shoot to the level they should be able to, and in order to get repeat business one has to have people feeling good about themselves. Therefore the standards get lowered. Biker
I know this topic has been somewhat dead for a while, but it is an important one. I agree with Biker. I think that a lot of these "training classes", along with what they promote, are designed to produce more dollars than they are good self defense shooters. Yes, most self defense encounters are up close and personal. But the problem is what can you actually "learn" shooting an AR-15 rifle at a full sized silhouette target from 7 yards away, rapid fire no less?
These trainers incorporate a lot of this "run and gun" close up stuff into their routine because it's fun, and it keeps the class awake. Basic marksmanship skills are not exciting to teach, or be taught. If you have someone who has paid top buck, taken time off of work, and traveled a great distance to get to one of these "carbine courses", and they don't have fun, they'll not only never come back, they will bad mouth it when asked. It won't take long under those circumstances for a lot of these guys to wither away and die on the vine financially. In keeping with promoting "Action Jackson" type shooting, they'll have larger class sizes, and turn more dollars in the process.
A lot of these trainers talk loud, keep guns roaring, and make things easy because they have to. In a way it's like eating restaurant food. It has to taste good or you won't come back, or talk good about the place when asked. The problem is they are required to make the food high in fat and unhealthy to accomplish that. A lot of these "training classes" are much in line with that. What takes place for you to have fun, isn't going to teach you a lot. At least not a hell of a lot you can apply from a practical standpoint. But it is good salesmanship.
One thing I have noticed over time is how distance has been shortened up in general when shooting. At my clubs pistol range the minimum distance you can place a target is 25 yards. There is almost always no one there when I go. Most of the handgun shooters go to the general range where they can place targets as close as 7 yards.
Back in the early 70's when I went to an indoor range, most all of the shooters in all of the bays had their targets set out at either 50 feet, or 25 yards. Today most everyone is shooting from 7 yards at huge silhouette targets. And their "patterns" are pathetic. They burn through magazine after magazine of ammo in no time, and hit little. It goes hand in hand with a lot of what you see in these police "dash cam shootouts". 2 cops blaze through 30 rounds from 2 guns in almost no time, but the bad guy still manages to either get away, or else do a hell of a lot of damage. Accurate shooting has definitely taken a back seat to slinging lead, along with all of this "increased firepower". You can't help but wonder how guys like Bill Jordan survived for so long through so much with a simple 6 shot wheel gun. He knew how to shoot. It really makes you wonder if we are headed in the right direction with all of this?
-
One thing I have noticed over time is how distance has been shortened up in general when shooting. At my clubs pistol range the minimum distance you can place a target is 25 yards. There is almost always no one there when I go. Most of the handgun shooters go to the general range where they can place targets as close as 7 yards.
25 yards is Gun 1.0, 7 yards is Gun 2.0.
Fact is, Bill, most people today are buying guns for SD, not 25 yard bulls eye shooting. SD shooting needs to be within 7 yards / 21 feet, so that is what most people shoot. Maybe your range ought to reconsider their restrictions, they might get more business.
Yes, I would like to be able to hit something consistently with tight groups at 25 yards, but that just ain't going to happen for me. I do not have the time or money to shoot that much and take that much instruction to reach that point. And with my eyes, I am happy with hand sized groups at 7 yards - if I could do that consistently.
I am taking some instruction to improve my SD skills, but 25 yards is out of the question - for me.
-
It's not so much the lack of distance, as it is the total lack of marksmanship. No one is saying you need to shoot 3" groups at 25 yards to be proficient with a handgun. What I see more often than not is emphasis placed on speed and firepower, than on accuracy. Accuracy is accuracy regardless of the range encountered. What I'm seeing isn't so much guys shooting at 7 yards, as it is guys who can't hit anything at 7 yards. Mostly because they are putting way too much emphasis on shooting quickly. A deliberate round that hits is more beneficial than 3 that miss. Regardless of how fast they were fired.
It is much the same regardless if one is talking pistol, rifle, or shotgun. I would rather face one of these "3-Gun" shotgun shooters, than I would a Trap doubles or 27 yard handicap champion in a dark alley.
-
My clubs outdoor pistol range is 50 yards with trolleys that cross the range at 7, 10, 15 and 25 yards. When we're there alone, we set up various targets at different ranges and get a good session transitioning form target to target.
On occasion, we'll do a pin shoot (if there aren't a lot of participants) and set the pins out at 25 yards. It's quite a different shoot because it's not run and gun at 21 feet but rather, use the basics and make good hits. We actually get more accurate because you're forced to use the fundamentals.
-
The hot setup would be to train for SD at 7 yards, get smooth, fast and accurate.
Then increase the range to 10 yards and repeat....
and repeat.
same amount of training and practice and shots fired at each range, you just gradually increase the range at which you work to become proficient.
-
The discipline affects each persons range,some one who's sole focus is on SD will shoot at shorter ranges, while some.
one focused on precision, like bull eye shooting will shoot longer ranges.
Take some one like Alf who shots several different styles, he doesn't practice all disciplines at the same range any more than he would use his GSSF pistol to practice his silhouette shooting.
-
Maybe we have alot of new shooters these days who need guidance and help?
I generally shoot 7 yards and use a target that silouhettes (for better lack of term) the bones of the body. I go center mass and strive to hit spine. So long as most are within 2" of spine I feel OK. I go for the T also and take more time with that shot. When I drop to pelvis I'm quicker to fire and get back on target because the bone area is larger and significant hits come easier.
Of course, Mike (M58) can whip me any day. And did a couple of years back. However I did nail those little poppers at 50 yards instead of trying to run the course no one had time to run.
-
There is some great conversation so I'll try not to ruin it with my 2 cents.
I grew up a Bullseye shooter, 25/50 yards, one hand, unsupported, 5 shot strings. If it was outside the black it might as well be a miss and if it's not an X...well, hope the other guys are having bad days too.
Then I get turned on to IDPA USPSA, and three gun a few years ago. It's a whole new world. What I learned at first was, I'm slow, but I'm accurate. Since then I know work on speed more than anything else. Now it's about shooting fast, and accurate enough. If it's a 6 inch steel plate you are trying to hit, you can be 2 inches off center and still be good. Time to first shot, target transitioning, reloads are all other shooting skill just as important as sight picture and trigger control in the right shooting environment. That said I also see a lot of people at the range that don't have any skill in sight picture or trigger control. They are all skills with different levels of importance for difference styles of shooting.
I'll leave it with some advice from my father. I asked why he preferred using his 1911 in the "other center fire" portions of bullseye matches and not a 9mm or his S&W Model 52 (which was more accurate). He said 2 reasons: 1. he could perfect his shooting with one gun and not have to thick about different weight, feel, sights. And 2. .45 is bigger bullet, I can be further off and still get the X. The point is, "fast" and "accurate" are all relative.