Do not use airosft or air guns for firearms training

[FireForged]

1. It's unreasonable to expect any type of training to fully replicate real combat. Nothing but real combat replicates real combat. Therefore, unless one takes the view that all training is useless because it doesn't fully replicate real combat, it is a given that at least some benefits can be derived from something that does not fully replicate real combat.

I do not believe that anyone suggested that they expect training to fully replicate real combat. I simply highlighting the disparity between a thoughtful attempt to simulate real issues and condition vs mimicking self defense nuances within the context of a game which is regulated for the purpose of being sporting and entertaining. One is designed to train and the other is designed to entertain.

2. A game may or may not provide training benefit depending on how it is set up and carried through. Even if it does provide training benefit, it won't fully replicate real combat.

again, I do not believe that replicating real combat was the standard referenced in this discussion. I think the standard that I suggested was to simply training with the proper context which is absent a bunch of adverse gaming issues which you may have to constantly discriminate. I simply promote the idea that a game is a game and training is training.

3. A "gaming mentality" is not at all the same as participating in "games". Some games are set up with a "gaming mentality", others are not. Some people participating in "games" do so with a "gaming mentality" while others focus on the potential training benefits. Even in the "practical" pistol sports, you see people who are in it purely for the win (gaming mentality) and others who are clearly trying to build good habits and consider it to be part of their training.

sure and a person might play whack a mole with the idea of improving lumber jack skills but you can see where suggesting that you develop, sharpen, further or attain skill in such a manner might be considered muddy water.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jwamplerusa

Before discounting realistic airsoft "guns", take the time to watch this video.

https://youtu.be/qQDfwyUgtjg

All of the gentleman's for skills were learned on airsoft. Watch him acclimate to live fire.

See post #16 ...

[JohnKSa]

I simply highlighting the disparity between a thoughtful attempt to simulate real issues and condition vs mimicking self defense nuances within the context of a game which is regulated for the purpose of being sporting and entertaining. One is designed to train and the other is designed to entertain.

Some games are designed purely to entertain, some are designed with an eye to both (in differing levels), some are even designed primarily to be training. The idea that there are no games that provide training benefit is just wrong. IDPA, for example, was specifically designed with the idea of providing training value.

"IDPA is the use of practical equipment including full charge service ammunition to solve simulated real world self-defense scenarios using practical handguns and holsters that are suitable for self-defense use."

We can argue about how well they managed to do that (and I'd be the first to point out that they have failed in some respects), but regardless of the outcome it's clear that it is not true that all games are designed with only entertainment in mind.

sure and a person might play whack a mole with the idea of improving lumber jack skills ...

I looked back at my post and I don't see anything suggesting that every possible game one could list would provide some kind of training value.

I do not believe that replicating real combat was the standard referenced in this discussion.

Hmmm... Let me try again. Here's what I responded to:

"A gaming mentality is not really conducive to real combat simply because "you dont fight that way" and "wouldnt fight that way"."

Let me try again.

1. It's unreasonable to expect any type of training to be conducted in exactly the "way people fight". That's simply impossible. Therefore, unless one takes the view that all training is useless because it doesn't fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight" , it is a given that there is the possibility that at least some benefits can be derived from something that does not fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight".

2. A game may or may not provide training benefit depending on how it is set up and carried through. Even if it does provide training benefit, it won't fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight".

3. A "gaming mentality" is not at all the same as participating in "games". Some games are set up with a "gaming mentality", others are not. Some people participating in "games" do so with a "gaming mentality" while others focus on the potential training benefits. Even in the "practical" pistol sports, you see people who are in it purely for the win (gaming mentality) and others who are clearly trying to build good habits and consider it to be part of their training.

Airsoft guns and airguns help with sight alignment, trigger control, and can be used to work on some aspects of gun handling. There is the possibility that their use could provide training practice depending on how that use is structured and carried out. But they don't replicate recoil properly which limits how much one can learn from training with them.

[JERRYS.]

simunitions or sim rounds as we say are great for force on force room clearing, building clearing, traffic stop, suspect persons, domestics......

[Cheapshooter]

I'm going to have to politely disagree.

I'm not so polite, just honest. The biggest pile of useless hog wash I've read on this forum! A very long and detailed pile at that!

[shurshot]

Opening post...? HMmmm...

[Bill DeShivs]

Mustsa been one of them experts....

[ghbucky]

I'm not one of them experts, but IMHO, 'gaming mentality' or not, any gun handling is better than no gun handling.

[Double Naught Spy]

Have to agree the OP, who hasn't returned to address the responses, is off-base and was just trying to drive people to his YouTube channel, as one member reporting the post (after a lot of responses had already gone up) suggested.

Which one of those links goes to HIS channel? Just curious because it seems like every one of these goes to a different channel. Channels are from folks I have never heard of before and famous one like Forgotten Weapons and Vickers' channel. You don't think Larry Vickers is her posting under a new name, do you?

[cslinger]

There is a VAST amount of practice and training you can get without ever firing a live shot IMO. Obviously this is not to say live fire is un-necessary but sight alighnment, draw stroke, mag changes, movement, general handling etc. can all be done without even a trigger press.

As far as airguns gun one thing a spring gun will teach you is follow through and making sure you press the trigger and hold the gun the same way every time and it will do so with far less room for error then a firearm. This doesn’t transfer one for one of course as firearms are completely different but the mentality carries over, same grip, same trigger press, same follow through. You just need to learn those specifics to the gun in question.

Ohhh yeah FUN....duh.

[stephen426]

When used properly, airsoft and paintball can be used to teach tactics force on force. Most of us don’t have access to simunitions nor do most of us have a place to practice even if we did.

For me the practical shooting club was eye opening. We do so many things that you’d never be able to do in a traditional range setting. This includes drawing from concealment, rapid fire, engaging multiple targets, shooting on the move, shooting moving objects, and shooting from cover. This isn’t IPSC or PPC, but we do some similar drills. The idea is to shoot what we carry and focus on keeping it real.

We don’t do force on force training even though one of our members is a trainer for the local police department. I think worrying about bad guys shooting back at you is a game changer in terms of how we stand and present ourselves. Will you still hit your mark with slow aimed fire when there are incoming rounds? You have to be very aware of cover, concealment, and angles. I learned that the hard way in paintball.

Anyway, I think most of us agree the initial post is bunk and that any training is better than no training.

[T. O'Heir]

Do not use YouTube as a training aide either. Anybody with internet access can post anything they want there.
Computer games have nothing whatever to do with reality. Simulators used by the military are different critters. Years ago, the U.S. military actually sent some game programmers to school so they would know how a real firearm works and reacts. Of course, nobody is shooting at you. And you've been fed regularly and had plenty of sleep in nice dry, warm places.
Most computer games are programmed by people who have never seen a real firearm.
"...or competitive shooting..." You mean like the Olympics? Where most participating countries' citizens are not allowed to own real firearms so the International Olympic Committee went to 10 Meter AIR rifles and pistols? Said rifles/pistols use pellets, match grade pellets. Not BB's. They're as accurate as any real target rifle. The 'bull' 10X ring is supposedly 1/64" diameter.
Air Soft 'guns' are toys. You can spend more than 3 grand USD on an Olympic grade Feinwerkbau air rifle though. They ain't toys. Anyway, the techniques involving breathing, sight picture and trigger control are exactly the same with a quality air rifle or pistol as they are with a high end target rifle or pistol.
"...getting the gun out of the holster safely and..." Is practiced by the 'Quick Draw' guys who use blanks.

[44 AMP]

So airsoft allows you to practice gunhandling, mag changes, sight pictures and trigger press, but doesn't have recoil.

It DOES allow you to practice some of the most important fundamentals of shooting (namely, gunhandling, mag changes, sight pictures and trigger press) away from a live range; there's no value in that?

This got me wondering...since airsoft and other replicas can't accurately replicate actual firing and recoil, I get that they aren't useful training tools for firing and recoil.

And, I'm not going to argue that if they are faithful reproductions of actual firearms (short of actually shooting real firearm ammo), then there would be some value using them for the fundamentals given above.

What I'm wondering about is WHY would you use an airsoft (etc) for that??

Why not use a real gun?? Why not use THE real gun you would really be using in a "non-training" situation???

Seems to me that you would get BETTER training with a real gun than with an airsoft or something like it.
If you are stopping short of live fire, why wouldn't the real gun be better, as it gives you the exact weight, feel and operation of controls as the real gun, because it IS the real gun. Can't see why one would spend any money on an airsoft if you already have the real gun the airsoft copies...

(and, if you don't, what's the point of "training" on a copy of a gun you don't have???)

[ghbucky]

And, I'm not going to argue that if they are faithful reproductions of actual firearms (short of actually shooting real firearm ammo), then there would be some value using them for the fundamentals given above.

Airsoft manufactures licensed replicas of real guns.

Such as a Springfield XDM

They are a lot more $$ than the toys for the airsoft game, but they are precise replicas of the real gun that you can shoot in your basement.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

What I'm wondering about is WHY would you use an airsoft (etc) for that??

Why not use a real gun?? Why not use THE real gun you would really be using in a "non-training" situation???

Seems to me that you would get BETTER training with a real gun than with an airsoft or something like it.

I could see starting a new shooter with an airsoft item that replicates a real arm's operation. When the shooter is truly unfamiliar with firearms, he can't have the universe of safety habits we all take for granted, so he gets cocooned in my attention and almost constant communication. A loud range and lots of actual gunfire works against that communication even with electronic ear protection.

If I can do that in a non-threatening atmosphere like a suburban backyard, and speak in a conversational voice, I'm not competing with recoil and noise for that person's attention.

I value my own dry-fire practice, but I take seriously the idea that dry-fire can erode safety habits by training me to expect an arm to be unloaded. In additional to my own dry-fire practice, I have always introduced someone to shooting with a living room or dining room table demonstration of function with some handling for them as well. I don't know if I could keep a new student's interest with a lot of dry-fire, or if it would do anything for them but teach that they can pull the trigger with nothing happening.

I think I get a lot out of dry-fire that a new student wouldn't.

[FireForged]

Let me try again.

1. It's unreasonable to expect any type of training to be conducted in exactly the "way people fight". That's simply impossible. Therefore, unless one takes the view that all training is useless because it doesn't fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight" , it is a given that there is the possibility that at least some benefits can be derived from something that does not fully replicate "the way people fight", or "would fight".

Brother.. when we talk about "training" there are certain basic or fundamental edicts of fighting ( lawful self defense) no matter if it relates to the citizen, leo, soldier, protective services or whatever. What I am so poorly trying to say is that rarely are these edicts something that are promoted, re-enforced, introduced, developed or even thought about in a "game". Why should it?.. its just a game. Games are often full of optics, nuance and perhaps some familiar coloring around the edges but I call that "mimicking" not simulating. You keep using the word "replicate".. and thats fine but that is not want I am talking about and its not what I said.

A common concept involved in "simulating" certain conditions or environments generally allows for the existence of suboptimal ( less than perfect) margins which may result from limited time, safety concerns, lack of funding, unreasonable logistical consideration, space or other related factors. A fair and reasonable representation is not a foreign standard, it is often the intent.

Being under water isnt the same as being in space but its a fair/reasonable simulation in my opinion.


Just to get the glossary of terms out of the way:

In my mind, replicate would be the highest form of training reproduction which is cost intensive, risky and (although possible), not often achieved. A simulation would be a fair and reasonable recreation which closely mirrors the intended environment. Mimicking would often be considered a superficial nuance.

[JohnKSa]

What I'm wondering about is WHY would you use an airsoft (etc) for that??

Why not use a real gun?? Why not use THE real gun you would really be using in a "non-training" situation???

1. You can shoot them inside your house with no concern about lead contamination, noise issues. backstop concerns, etc.
2. They are more economical than firearms to shoot.
3. Airsoft can be used for training where firearms would be too dangerous to use--FOF type scenarios. In some ways this is true of airguns, but less so since they are potentially more dangerous than Airsoft guns.
4. Legal restrictions on them tend to be pretty mild. It has been mentioned more than once that a Japanese firearms afficionado does his training with Airsoft in his home country and then enters competitions in the U.S. with borrowed firearms. Training with firearms in his home country simply isn't an option.

They have some very obvious limitations, but there are some benefits to using them.

What I am so poorly trying to say is that rarely are these edicts something that are promoted, re-enforced, introduced, developed or even thought about in a "game".

Well, 'rarely' is a fairly 'fuzzy' term, so I think I can agree with that. 'Rarely' is not the same thing as 'never' which is good because there are clearly some games that are specifically designed to provide training. I mentioned one obvious one in my previous post.

Games are often full of optics, nuance and perhaps some familiar coloring around the edges but I call that "mimicking" not simulating.

Whether one calls it mimicking, simulating or replicating, it's true that no game (and no training) will do it perfectly.

That's what I keep trying to say. The fact that a game (or training) can't mimick, simulate, replicate "real combat" or the "way people fight/would fight" perfectly doesn't mean that it provides no value at all. That is a very good thing since that would mean that the only way to train would be to actually be in real combat or actually fighting.

Many games provide zero training value. Some provide minimal training value. Some provide pretty good training value. Completely writing something off as having no value because it's a game is a mistake. It would be unwarranted to assume that because a game has gunlike things it must be good for training, but it's also unwarranted to assume that because it's a game it can't provide any value other than entertainment.

[Double K]

You can train your self to handle a firearm and go through the motions of all sorts of shooting/self defense scenarios with fake guns-which you should do btw.
Most people have neither the time nor the resources to go to a range and do it with a real gun.
Neither one will prepare a person for real gun fight 100% but will either one help, absolutely.
Dry firing and shooting authentic replica guns makes the gun handling second nature for me so that I can concentrate on the mental aspect of shooting/self defense.

[Slopemeno]

Played paintball for 35 years. I now play recreationally with guys who played on the Ironmen. The strange thing I found with paintball is how *close* it is to 'ol PPC shooting. A rather notorious Ironmen player from the '90's Marty Bush- the last guy to use a pump gun in the pros- came up with a training drill that is PPC all-over, the "Marty Drill"

Just about wore out a Webley Hurricane air pistol working on my front sight focus on my way to USPSA A-class. Probably did 100,000 dry fire cycles back in my USPSA days. If dry-fire works, and it does, btw, why doesn't any other gun game help?

Any trigger time is better than no trigger time.

[44 AMP]

Anyway, I think most of us agree the initial post is bunk and that any training is better than no training.

I'll agree with the first part, but not the second.

Bad training is WORSE than NO training...

And, "bad training" may not be actual formal training, but just following the established usual procedures (including range procedures) and can even include the bad training we get from popular FICTION entertainment on TV and the movies.

I asked,

What I'm wondering about is WHY would you use an airsoft (etc) for that??

Why not use a real gun?? Why not use THE real gun you would really be using in a "non-training" situation???

and got some interesting replies with some valid points, but not the answer(s) I was looking for.

First off, lets be clear, we all seem to agree that airsoft etc. does not and cannot reproduce the experience of firing live ammunition. Everything up to that point, perhaps, and in some degree, yes, but even firing airsoft stops well short of firing actual live service ammunition. Agreed??

I could see starting a new shooter with an airsoft item that replicates a real arm's operation. When the shooter is truly unfamiliar with firearms, he can't have the universe of safety habits we all take for granted, so he gets cocooned in my attention and almost constant communication.

I understand this reasoning, but it doesn't answer my question, All the learning safety, operating methods and everything short of firing live ammo can (and I think, should) be learned using a real gun (unloaded or filled with inert rounds-always). It seems to me that one of the big drawbacks to training with a "non-gun" particularly with a beginner is that the beginner KNOWS its not a real gun. Deep down, they know that any mistakes cannot do real harm, and that may affect their dedication and focus to learning to do the right things all the time.

1. You can shoot them inside your house with no concern about lead contamination, noise issues. backstop concerns, etc.
2. They are more economical than firearms to shoot.
3. Airsoft can be used for training where firearms would be too dangerous to use--FOF type scenarios. In some ways this is true of airguns, but less so since they are potentially more dangerous than Airsoft guns.
4. Legal restrictions on them tend to be pretty mild. It has been mentioned more than once that a Japanese firearms afficionado does his training with Airsoft in his home country and then enters competitions in the U.S. with borrowed firearms. Training with firearms in his home country simply isn't an option.

Valid points but beyond the scope of my question. #1 and #2 are about shooting and my question about using actual firearms over replicas stops deliberately stops short of actual firing.
#3, I don't understand. When, (and how?) is an unloaded firearm "too dangerous to use"?????
and #4 simply doesn't apply to my point, legal restrictions in other countries are not my concern here.

Most people have neither the time nor the resources to go to a range and do it with a real gun.

This idea has popped up a couple times, that one needs to be on a range in order to train with a real gun. Again, my point is, short of actual firing live ammo, you don't need to be on a range.

I realize the responses include both inital familiarization with a firearm and the advanced training combined, so perhaps that's why I'm not getting what I'm looking for?

Also, I'm not looking at this from the perspective of professional trainers giving classes and courses, and that maybe makes the difference??

I have real guns. I don't have any airsoft or non-gun replicas. Why would I go out and get those instead of using the real guns to teach someone how to safely operate firearms??

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Valid points but beyond the scope of my question. #1 and #2 are about shooting and my question about using actual firearms over replicas stops deliberately stops short of actual firing.

Emphasis added. I don't believe the air-soft training advocates are limiting the value of that training as you have. The ability to run through the entire activity of shooting, including actually shooting something, is present.

Would I buy an air-soft item just to introduce someone to shooting? Depending on price and who I am introducing, I might. Before air-soft popped onto my radar a couple of years ago in reading a thread here, I bought a CMP air rifle to introduce my 10 year old daughter to shooting; with no ear protection and in our back yard she took it seriously and was able to see how following my instructions on the trigger press helped improve accuracy. I think it was $100. I was able to instruct and observe her compliance before the 22lr was introduced.

Maybe I wasted $100, but maybe I avoided confusion at a range and a terrible accident.

I'm not a professional instructor either, but I've introduced secretaries, clerks, friends' wives and my own daughters to shooting. I can appreciate the value in beginning with something less than a firearm.

[luger fan]

If it helps YOU roll with it. Everything isn't for everyone.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I could see starting a new shooter with an airsoft item that replicates a real arm's operation. When the shooter is truly unfamiliar with firearms, he can't have the universe of safety habits we all take for granted, so he gets cocooned in my attention and almost constant communication. A loud range and lots of actual gunfire works against that communication even with electronic ear protection.

If I can do that in a non-threatening atmosphere like a suburban backyard, and speak in a conversational voice, I'm not competing with recoil and noise for that person's attention.

I actually use an airsoft to teach new shooters for the very reasons you mentioned. I cover safety rules, stance, grip, aiming, breathing and trigger control before they ever handle a real gun. The airsoft guns I have are not exact replicas so I can't teach them loading, reloading, racking the slide (etc.), but it gets them "safe" and teaches them not to flinch. I then start them on .22 LR until they are comfortable enough to move up.

[Double Naught Spy]

First off, lets be clear, we all seem to agree that airsoft etc. does not and cannot reproduce the experience of firing live ammunition.

Neither does dry firing yet it is an oft used training and practice method.

[stephen426]

The person who made the original post has not responded to the two pages of comments to his post. He was either just trying to drive traffic to his YouTube page or really does not like people disagreeing with him.