The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on June 23, 2012, 01:03:10 AM
-
Since there has recently been some renewed discussion about this subject I decided to put some thoughts down .
There are of course many types of "gun games", Skeet, trap, and sporting clays are sufficiently stylized, and regimented that few mistake them for more than shooting practice.
The same can be said for Bullseye shooting , although some rifle shooters think they are the next Carlos Hathcock.
However when we start discussing "action shooting" confusion starts to set in.
Whether Cowboy action, modern 3 gun, IDPA, IPSC, or "Zoot Shooters" the participants fall into 2 categories,
"Athletes" and deluded Mall ninjas.
So, your 60, fat, and only go an occasional Saturday for the fun of it ?
You are just as much an athlete as the guy who plays softball once in a while.
The "deluded Mall Ninja" thinks he's training. For what only he knows.
Yes, training and games both require shooting skill although the standards are not as high in gaming, as long as it clips the target is good enough, the potential effectiveness of the hit is never considered. The focus is on speed.
In real life situations the focus is reversed.
In real life, the effectiveness of hits is more important and if you take an hour but survive you have won .
As an analogy, 2 carpenters, one a framer, the other a cabinet maker, they may both use hammers and saws, but that does not mean the one can do the others job.
If you want to have fun,and meet like minded people shoot gun games.
If you want to get training in gun related martial arts go to a reputable training course.
The potential for "danger" comes from confusing the 2.
-
As long as you're using the proper caliber of .45 or larger, training is not important! [sarcasm]
We all know that...when I'm carrying my 1911, I'm indestructible! When I have the .38 on me I'm continually looking for middle aged balding men with goatees and asking them questions...
;D
-
Yes, training and games both require shooting skill although the standards are not as high in gaming, as long as it clips the target is good enough, the potential effectiveness of the hit is never considered. The focus is on speed.
That's not necessarily true. Usually the focus is on both speed and accuracy. "Clipping" the target will not get the job done. The fastest shooter will never win if his hits are not there.
-
I'll not argue against the validity of quality trigger time. Any time you can shoot, and focus on the fundamentals and getting that right, is a good thing. Shooting in the various competitions from 3-Gun, to USPSA, etc is great groundwork for the handling and shooting of a weapon....but they shouldn't be relied on for 100% of any kind of SD training.
The fact of the matter when it comes to SD training (and I've stated this many times in my unsolicited opinion) is that NOTHING CAN EVER PREPARE YOU FOR 100% OF ANYTHING. You simply can't know what MIGHT happen next. You can cover many 'what-ifs'....and practical shooting sports can cover a good bit of that, but it just can't do it all.
It can't realistically cover the situation of, say, walking out of a convenience store bathroom and coming face-to-face with a .357 magnum with the hammer cocked and a tweaked out meth-head on the trigger.
Or how about having a knife stuck in your back while pumping gas?
Or, a cop being shot with his own gun by a perp in handcuffs, while struggling to put him in the car..... because the department mandated using a revolver and limited retention holster?
All three example happened to people I know personally.
You want to make IPSC, USPSA, IDPA more 'realistic'? Have the RO walk up behind a shooter about two seconds before the buzzer goes off and knock the sh!t out of him with a club...... or put a knife to his throat......... No?
Like I have said, I'm not knocking any of the competitions.......just saying to use common sense.
-
I'll not argue against the validity of quality trigger time. Any time you can shoot, and focus on the fundamentals and getting that right, is a good thing. Shooting in the various competitions from 3-Gun, to USPSA, etc is great groundwork for the handling and shooting of a weapon....but they shouldn't be relied on for 100% of any kind of SD training.
The fact of the matter when it comes to SD training (and I've stated this many times in my unsolicited opinion) is that NOTHING CAN EVER PREPARE YOU FOR 100% OF ANYTHING. You simply can't know what MIGHT happen next. You can cover many 'what-ifs'....and practical shooting sports can cover a good bit of that, but it just can't do it all.
It can't realistically cover the situation of, say, walking out of a convenience store bathroom and coming face-to-face with a .357 magnum with the hammer cocked and a tweaked out meth-head on the trigger.
Or how about having a knife stuck in your back while pumping gas?
Or, a cop being shot with his own gun by a perp in handcuffs, while struggling to put him in the car..... because the department mandated using a revolver and limited retention holster?
All three example happened to people I know personally.
You want to make IPSC, USPSA, IDPA more 'realistic'? Have the RO walk up behind a shooter about two seconds before the buzzer goes off and knock the sh!t out of him with a club...... or put a knife to his throat......... No?
Like I have said, I'm not knocking any of the competitions.......just saying to use common sense.
I'm not knocking the games either, I'm just saying that people need a realistic perspective, games are for fun and sport.
Just because Lizzie Borden knew how to use an axe doesn't mean she was a capable logger.
-
Apparently my post on the other thread fell on stubborn keyboards.
Rather than let it settle down we now have a whole new thread on a topic that causes nothing but bloodshed around here.
Where is Coop with his pointy stick? That is the perfect cover for this book!
-
Just because Lizzie Borden knew how to use an axe doesn't mean she was a capable logger.
Lizzie Borden was acquitted of all charges!
;D
-
Lizzie Borden was acquitted of all charges!
;D
So wasn't OJ.
You're point is ? ;D
Actually, there was a show about it a while back, "Histories Mysteries" I think.
They used "luminol" around the wash tub and half the room glowed.
Apparently my post on the other thread fell on stubborn keyboards.
Rather than let it settle down we now have a whole new thread on a topic that causes nothing but bloodshed around here.
Where is Coop with his pointy stick? That is the perfect cover for this book!
m58, no one forced you to read this thread and the clarity of the title means you can't say you didn't know what it would be about.
If you are suggesting limiting the free exchange of ideas because some one might get offended then you are part of the problem.
I would suggest you rethink your stance on the subject.
The point of my thinking is that the subject belongs in the "Cafe" or handgun, forums not "defense and tactics" because games are not training, and gaming strategies are not viable defensive tactics.
-
Apparently my post on the other thread fell on stubborn keyboards.
Rather than let it settle down we now have a whole new thread on a topic that causes nothing but bloodshed around here.
Where is Coop with his pointy stick? That is the perfect cover for this book!
You just get the boxes lined up.
;)
;D
-
Since there has recently been some renewed discussion about this subject I decided to put some thoughts down .
There are of course many types of "gun games", Skeet, trap, and sporting clays are sufficiently stylized, and regimented that few mistake them for more than shooting practice.
The same can be said for Bullseye shooting , although some rifle shooters think they are the next Carlos Hathcock.
However when we start discussing "action shooting" confusion starts to set in.
Whether Cowboy action, modern 3 gun, IDPA, IPSC, or "Zoot Shooters" the participants fall into 2 categories,
"Athletes" and deluded Mall ninjas.
So, your 60, fat, and only go an occasional Saturday for the fun of it ?
You are just as much an athlete as the guy who plays softball once in a while.
The "deluded Mall Ninja" thinks he's training. For what only he knows.
Yes, training and games both require shooting skill although the standards are not as high in gaming, as long as it clips the target is good enough, the potential effectiveness of the hit is never considered. The focus is on speed.
In real life situations the focus is reversed.
In real life, the effectiveness of hits is more important and if you take an hour but survive you have won .
As an analogy, 2 carpenters, one a framer, the other a cabinet maker, they may both use hammers and saws, but that does not mean the one can do the others job.
If you want to have fun,and meet like minded people shoot gun games.
If you want to get training in gun related martial arts go to a reputable training course.
The potential for "danger" comes from confusing the 2.
As I noted in the "renewed interest" thread. You pontificate about something you really don't understand.
You argument is here is the worst of academic pretense. The use of analogy is the weakest of debate technique. When one does not have a valid argument, declare that A is like a potato and B is like a lawn-mower. Therefore A and B can't related.
Having been thoroughly dismantled in the other thread, you've created this thread wherein you can frame the argument in your interest.
I encourage readers to visit the posts there to immediate see how you are wrong. I will cut and paste my best observations here later.
I will observe immediately though that your two declarations that the standards are higher in training than in gaming and that the emphasis on speed are incorrect (see previous mention of speaking about that which you are actually ill equipped to opine).
In gaming (the gaming you with little subtlety allude) the goal is accuracy at speed. The match winners are shooting very high percentage of shots in the A zone as fast as they can. They intentionally seek the balance of 95% of possible points as fast as they can. Misses on steel targets are to be avoided since they waste time and gain no points. Shots that "clip the target" are likewise steadfastly avoided since they earn either significantly less points or cost the shooter significant time. They also represent shots that might cost the shooter even more- shots into hard cover on another target or a no-shoot.
The standard in gaming is the highest order of pure gun handling skills. In Military and LE circles this is not the standard. It is a minimum standard that all must attain to be entrusted with a weapon in the public or on the battlefield. They recognize a maximum standard. But that is one not all that difficult to achieve. Many soldiers walk about with the Expert Rifleman's badge (I did it each time I shot a qual) and three of us graduated with Top Gun designations from the State academy. Gaming pushes the bar higher and the top dog gamers are often sought out to train elite units on how to shoot better. To challenge our incorrect beliefs as to what is minimum acceptable and what is maximum attainable.
Robert Vogel is one of the world's best pistol shooters, and an LEO. He didn't get to be the best as an LEO, he got those incredible skills through... gaming. He doesn't fancy himself or other gamers as mall ninjas. Neither does Ben Stoeger, the current USPSA National Production champion and LEO. There are a number of others- the Chief of a nearby city PD is a USPSA GM. He doesn't think poorly or gamers and wishes his officers would shoot more- they be better prepared to use their sidearms if pressed to do so. It appears that you do. Who's opinion should one accept? Persons who are current LEOs and gamers- or someone who demonstrates no knowledge of the games; or at least a severe misunderstanding?
As to what the gamers are practicing for- well, just about anything. See, in the games you get to experience a tremendous variety of scenarios and shoot them.
If one would like to actually be better prepared to using a gun to save a life, then investing in ammo for practice and matches and the very small entry fee can be argued to be a much more efficient investment.
-
I started this thread to calmly state some thoughts on something I had not previously given much thought to without some ones attitude distracting from my point.
There is no point of debate, or room for it, since these are simply some thoughts I had on the subject as stated in the OP.
Since this is essentially a judgement call on the part of the individual participant your opinion, stated, and restated ad nuaseum, is no more or less valid than any one else's.
In fact, now that I think about it, your opinion is probably less valid , being influenced by your apparently avid participation in the games.
If that bothers you I can only direct you to one of your own posts
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=14651.msg252170#msg252170
-
I started this thread to calmly point state some thoughts on something I had not previously given much thought to without some ones attitude distracting from my point.
There is no point of debate, or room for it, since these are simply some thoughts I had on the subject as stated in the OP.
Since this is essentially a judgement call on the part of the individual participant your opinion, stated, and restated ad nuaseum, is no more or less valid than any one else's.
In fact, now that I think about it, your opinion is probably less valid , being influenced by your apparently avid participation in the games.
If that bothers you I can only direct you to one of your own posts
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=14651.msg252170#msg252170
I'm sorry- you throw up a challenge, pretending to be subtle, get nuked, and suggest I could have bowed out gracefully?
When are you even going to post a valid point in support of your positions?
-
Steven, I respectfully disagree about standards and your preception thereof! I have shot/competed with individuals from many different branches of LE and find that many (more than I would have believed) leave because they don't want to be put to shame in competition! This tells me they wouldn't fare well or haven't, in the real world either whereas those who stay have done/do well in real world situations "under the gun". Those that stay came in as top notch LEO's, gun handelers and shots and get better. There is no need for them to be there but they stay because they see things that help them every day. I have watched this trend for over 25 years. Some, as TO, even take USPSA/IDPA back and use it as part of training for their officers! I have watched them train and some of the things they do are too dangerous for words and more dangerous than USPSA/IDPA COF have ever been and I see a lot of what is done in USPSA/IDPA used in this training. I beleive that when the shoe drops their training takes over and they go home at the end of the day! This is not to say that USPSA/IDPA makes everyone, myself included, a prime candidate for the FBI Hostage Rescue Unit or any LEO agency for that matter, but I do feel confident I can walk into the local "Stop & Rob", walk out, and enjoy the rest of the day when I get home.
Richard
-
I just read today's "The Tactical Wire" and got a little surprise. Here's a guy with "credentials" that suggests training may not be all that important for the average citizen... at least not the type of training we're told we must have if we are to have any chance of survival. Yet another opinion to confuse the issue.
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/features/226115 (http://www.thetacticalwire.com/features/226115)
-
FTA
"Is the difference in "power", reliability and functional accuracy significant? Especially when most of us admit that the term "powerful handgun" is an oxymoron at best and a dichotomy at worst. When the results of encounters between criminals and private citizens are scrutinized there's not much evidence to support that contention. I have asked the training community to provide me documented examples of incidents where a private citizen was injured after shooting an attacker with a small caliber handgun. To date, the silence has been deafening."
Good point, I guarantee such cases exist, simply because "crap happens", but not frequently enough for most, if any, to be able to recall them off the top of their head.
On the other hand violent criminals get shot, and frequently killed, by 60+ year old Grandmothers with amusing regularity.
No one with any sense can deny that a .22 LR in your pocket is a more effective weapon than the .44 Magnum that you left at home.
It also seems to be fairly common that the guns used in self defense shootings were put in drawers and closets then ignored for years until that one critical moment when their 20 year old ammunition saved a home owners life.
-
Anytime someone tells me I MUST have what he's selling my hearing fails me!
Interesting article from a seasoned professional! Something that is lacking in a lot of these so called "experts"!
-
Sounds like a trigger puller turned button pusher. Wait, that's not it... I'm afraid I'm woefully uninformed on how much training I might need so I shouldn't have an opinion about that.
Better get out to the range.
Does Call of Duty count?
-
Does Call of Duty count?
If it didn't half of the net-ninjas wouldn't have anything to talk about!
I love shooting the solo mission reactive target course, I swear I'm getting better on my recoil management ;D
-
If it didn't half of the net-ninjas wouldn't have anything to talk about!
I love shooting the solo mission reactive target course, I swear I'm getting better on my recoil management ;D
In the words of Sheriff Charlie in Wild Hogs:
For firearm training they just told us to play Doom.
-
To me, Claude Werner's article hits the nail on the head. The statistics say that there are hundreds of thousand of incidents every year where a firearm in the hands of ordinary citizens of both sexes has prevented a crime. I would guess that the great majority of those citizens have not had any great tactical training. In fact I would guess that the training they got was more like the training we get when we learn to ride a bicycle. My Grandfather and my Father taught me how to shoot. They also taught me about gun safety.
I shot trap for some years and I know that helped me in the downing of Pheasants and Grouse. I guess if I could hit a Grouse I could hit a bad guy coming into my house without having had any "Tactical" training. Putting rounds downrange under any circumstance can not be anything but good. My Grandfather and Father were very adamant about accuracy. If you can't hit your target what good is having a gun? It is the same as the old joke about how you get to Carnegie Hall. The answer of course is Practice, Practice, Practice.
From what I can see there is not much difference between people that want to be tactically trained and those that compete in shooting games. I carried the 1911 when I in the Army and I went through the minimal training that the Army uses. It was less than what Dad taught me about shooting Trap. I think average citizens that get serious enough about guns and self protection and spend thousands of dollars to be tactically trained are deluding themselves. Go to the range, learn how to hit a target, if you are any good enter some competitions, but forget the Ninja crap. And I agree the best caliber weapon to have is the one you are willing to carry on a daily basis and that includes .22s. And don't tell me that getting hit with three rapidly fired .22s won't make you rethink what you are attempting to do. It ruins your whole day.
-
To me, Claude Werner's article hits the nail on the head. The statistics say that there are hundreds of thousand of incidents every year where a firearm in the hands of ordinary citizens of both sexes has prevented a crime. I would guess that the great majority of those citizens have not had any great tactical training. In fact I would guess that the training they got was more like the training we get when we learn to ride a bicycle. My Grandfather and my Father taught me how to shoot. They also taught me about gun safety.
I shot trap for some years and I know that helped me in the downing of Pheasants and Grouse. I guess if I could hit a Grouse I could hit a bad guy coming into my house without having had any "Tactical" training. Putting rounds downrange under any circumstance can not be anything but good. My Grandfather and Father were very adamant about accuracy. If you can't hit your target what good is having a gun? It is the same as the old joke about how you get to Carnegie Hall. The answer of course is Practice, Practice, Practice.
From what I can see there is not much difference between people that want to be tactically trained and those that compete in shooting games. I carried the 1911 when I in the Army and I went through the minimal training that the Army uses. It was less than what Dad taught me about shooting Trap. I think average citizens that get serious enough about guns and self protection and spend thousands of dollars to be tactically trained are deluding themselves. Go to the range, learn how to hit a target, if you are any good enter some competitions, but forget the Ninja crap. And I agree the best caliber weapon to have is the one you are willing to carry on a daily basis and that includes .22s. And don't tell me that getting hit with three rapidly fired .22s won't make you rethink what you are attempting to do. It ruins your whole day.
I've never met anyone who likes to leak either....regardless of the hole size. ;)
-
I just did some unscientific research.
I grabbed 3 random copies of American Rifleman.
Of the 21 "Armed Citizen" entries one specified the intended victim was a veteran, 12 were men of unspecified experience,
however 7 were women who were unlikely to have had any formal training, 2 were under age 18, and the last was an 11 year old boy with a BB gun
-
I've been pretty clear on my skepticism on "tactical training", "defensive training" and the like. If I was an operator, a security person or other armed person who made his living with a gun, I most certainly would require more training and I would seek it out though my BS detector would be on high alert.
I'm a shooter who'd like to get out more often, I still don't think that there is a one in a million chance that I'll ever need to draw my firearm on another human being but more likely on some critter I encounter on my weekly hikes in the state forest!
I was offered a free class from one of these so called trainers and turned him down. It wasn't the price of training, the cost of the ammo or the four days loss of pay to attend his class at my range! It was because I thought he was an arrogant ass! I think that's a job requirement in the industry...
Give me a few weeks at the Sig Academy or Gunsite and I'd take that in a heartbeat!
-
I'm new here and hope I can get my two cents in without ruflling any feathers as this seems to be a hot button issue. I have shot in a number of competition matches and no matter what I do I come out "average" in the standings. I carry concealed and take defensive training and mindset seriously. I have listened to and read various opinions on the subject of gun games verses defensive shooting or combat. I understand what people mean by "mall ninja" allthough I think many people who are quick to pin that tag on someone else may be just like the people they are talking about. I also know folks who are so into the "gaming" aspects of competitions, that shooting becomes all about the wiz bang gadgets the magic techniques, and planning the stage for the fastest possible sequence. If that is your entire preperation for self defense then you are going to be in trouble when you find yourself faced with a real and determined attacker that didn't give you a chance to "walk through" or pre-plan, and you are carrying a 38 snubbie instead of your tricked out "Sunday go to IDPA gun".
Trigger time is all good, and the chance to shoot senarios of someone elses design will broaden your scope, and point out your strengths and weaknesses. It can tell you what you need to work on and what skills you are ready to take to the next level. The bigest problem I see is that we get so accustomed to shooting per gun game rules that we are likely to do that in a real defensive incident as well. The trigger control, reloading skills, use of cover, and safety learned in competition are good things but the habbit of two shots and moving on could get you killed. As Clint Smith points out, people will fire two shots, in one case the target falls after the first shot and the second round go's through you kids bedroom wall, or the guy you just hit COM twice is standing there with an evil grin because he is wearing body armour and is about to kill you while you are already changing your focus to look for the next BG. The point is, enjoy the games but remember there is a huge deference between winning an IDPA match and winning a fight fo your life.
-
I also know folks who are so into the "gaming" aspects of competitions, that shooting becomes all about the wiz bang gadgets the magic techniques, and planning the stage for the fastest possible sequence. If that is your entire preperation for self defense then you are going to be in trouble when you find yourself faced with a real and determined attacker that didn't give you a chance to "walk through" or pre-plan, and you are carrying a 38 snubbie instead of your tricked out "Sunday go to IDPA gun".
I started shooting USPSA last year and while some try to buy their skills the majority I shoot with will tell you that gear does little for your shooting. In my studies I've found that to be the case as well, in fact Rob Leatham's intro to Brian Enos' book even says as much.
EDIT: FWIW my daily carry is the same gun I shoot in USPSA Limited an XDM 4.5 in 45 ACP
Trigger time is all good, and the chance to shoot senarios of someone elses design will broaden your scope, and point out your strengths and weaknesses. It can tell you what you need to work on and what skills you are ready to take to the next level. The bigest problem I see is that we get so accustomed to shooting per gun game rules that we are likely to do that in a real defensive incident as well. The trigger control, reloading skills, use of cover, and safety learned in competition are good things but the habbit of two shots and moving on could get you killed. As Clint Smith points out, people will fire two shots, in one case the target falls after the first shot and the second round go's through you kids bedroom wall, or the guy you just hit COM twice is standing there with an evil grin because he is wearing body armour and is about to kill you while you are already changing your focus to look for the next BG. The point is, enjoy the games but remember there is a huge deference between winning an IDPA match and winning a fight fo your life.
In the previously mentioned book by Brian Enos he states that if he ever had to save someone from drowning he'd like to be an Olympic swimmer. I'd add to that "rather than an avid golfer." Bob Mayne has a Podcast "Handgun World" and his co-host is Ben Brannon, a Marine with a tour or two in the Middle East and his experience with IDPA and "action" in combat is very positive. This is not only games vs real life but civilian vs military shooting. Putting yourself under stress and shooting a course of fire that may contain steel (1 shot), paper targets (2-5 rounds to neutralize-I've shot as many as 6 rounds on swingers) and no shoots is as close as most of us will get to the real thing. I've heard interviews with people that have had to shoot in combat or law enforcement that the most difficult part is identifying who is the threat.
-
There are two kinds of people that shoot skeet. Those that are into the game, and those are practising for dove and duck season. Both are cool. But, you can tell the difference as one group is worried about their score, the other about their form. Two different objectives. Same with IDPA type gun games. There are the competitors who view it as a sport (and good for them) and there are the LEOs and CCW holders who see it as practice. You just need to remember why you're there. No virtue to one over the other as both will teach you to put a bullet on target. But are you worried about winning, or just shooting the course? Two valid choices, but you make the call.