That was a pretty decent article. I agree with some points and disagree with others. I feel that the main point to take away from the piece is this:
Quote:
|
When it comes to tactics and thinking, the results are mixed. If the competitive shooter is a “gamer”, and really isn’t all that interested in training for tactical situations then I say that he/she is not going to be prepared for the reality of death staring them in the face. But if they train for tactical situations and compete; it is a different story.
|
Training is vital, whether takes the form of competition or not.
I also really like these points that Avery makes about IDPA. (probably the most reality-oriented shooting game out there in comparison to IPSC and USPSA etc)
Quote:
|
With IDPA, the gear has been limited to what would be “reasonable” to carry in a defensive situation. But now we have match imposed limits on how the gun can be carried, how you will reload the firearm and other artificial restraints that limit the creative imagination of the shooter to “solve” the problem presented. The scoring of the targets imposes a dramatic time penalty for anything falling outside an arbitrary 8” circle and the shooting slows down to an unrealistic speed that is not reflected in the speed of actual engagements or force on force training scenarios that I have done exhaustive research on...Unrealistic Equipment — Taking a look at modern competitive equipment, we see guns and gear costing thousands of dollars. With the exception of production or stock gun classes...
|