tactical training

[Newton24b]

what happened to you all?

when did constant purchase of training classes that are the same "hide under a table and shoot the steel plate", 1000.00 shotguns/pistols with 700 in "accessory" upgrades, and a mall ninja feeling

replace overworked person with a loaded gun that they shot alot, who had the will to get the job done?

[kraigwy]

Don't blame me, I shoot a stock Model 64 Smith w/speedloaders in ICORE.

I use my old LE Hoyt duty break front holster. I did have to get another belt for the Hoyt, sometime since I retired my wife washed my other duty belt in hot water or something, it shrunk.

I use a stock Bereta 92FS in other action type competitions.

Bullseye I use a series 70 Gold cup in the 45 event, a Smith 52 in the center fire and High Standard Victor in 22. All the Bullseye guns I've been shooting since the late 70s.

I was a street cop pre-SWAT, when we kicked our own doors and did our own building searches, using a Model 28 Smith.

[raimius]

What is your complaint, exactly?
Taking cover while shooting seems intelligent to me.

[Newton24b]

theres no reality to it. everything is based on what they feel is the most common "what if" scenarios based on random movies.
for example when sitting in a cafe and someone starts robbing the place, students are supposed to jump under tables and start shooting at stationary targets. a few of the better courses have targets going back and forth on a zipline to simulate a non stationary robber.
but yet that and all other scenarios have no ability to take reality into account. remember the end of The Shootist? were the one hill billy upends a bar table and usesit for cover as he walks to the bar were the Duke is hiding?

I have yet to see one course or book where that type of response is considered. its always "robber stands in place soyou can shoot him, or robber walks in a small circle waving gun around".

how can you translate shooting at a target into the skills needed to deal with a real person whos shooting at you? the big schooting scenario systems for police training dealt well with that, because it was a life size movie the trainie was interacting with and it felt like there were part of the training film.

i know guys who can put 10 rounds into a hole the size of a quarter all day long. but these guys cant HIT the game animal once. yet i know people who did little target practice but lots of hunting, and do fine on animals but cant shoot worth crap on targets.

[westflfister]

Actually, shooting at stationary targets is realistic. Shooting at stationary targets from concealment is preferred. Most people have learned/ trained to shoot from a stationary position. Few (LE/Military) train to engage while moving toward the enemy, or off the line of attack. Either movement does not take much adjustment in order to engage.

Additionally, bar tables make for poor cover.

[Nitesites]

My Step-Father impressed upon me that movement is a fundamental part of defensive gunfighting.

Edit : An object in motion tends to stay in motion if you catch my drift.

[ranburr]

Newton24B,

Have you ever actually taken a class? Very strange postings.

[FireForged]

Basic proficiency and the use of static targets are part of just about every firearms course on the planet. Its a necessary skill that needs to be developed to a reasonable degree prior to more complex firearms use.

Most firearms courses include

Safety
Weapon Mechanics
Skillset training
Mindset training
Subject-matter theory
Methodology

[westflfister]

Nitesites,

There is nothing defensive about gunfighting. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion is only true if that object left before the gun fight. After that you are simply making yourself vulnerable, unless you have a battle buddy providing cover fire. If not well placed shots from whatever place/position you are in is best.

As far as training goes, stress shoots are probably better then shooting moving targets, unless you are a sniper/forward observer. Controlling your heart rate, breathing and gun handling under stresses is more vital then hitting a moving target.

[Nitesites]

That's simply a matter of opinion, Sir. I would rather move than remain a stationary target.

Edit : A static target is far more vulnerable than a kinetic one. Also, how do you gain hard cover if you remain frozen where you stand? In any case, I don't practice for bullseye...I go for as close to COM as possible while trying to gain speed.

[FireForged]

A static target is far more vulnerable than a kinetic one

Under the most general of circumstances.. maybe. Every armed conflict is unique and the best possition (moving or fixed) can only be determined in the moment.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Newton24b

....theres no reality to it. everything is based on what they feel is the most common "what if" scenarios based on random movies....

My guess is that you've never taken any good classes. I've taken a number and never did anything like that. The focus is on building basic skills.

I recently got back from Arizona where I took a five day Intermediate Handgun (350) class at Gunsite. I wrote and posted this journal about the experience. I talked there about what we did do and did learn.

Originally Posted by Newton24b

...i know people who did little target practice but lots of hunting, and do fine on animals but cant shoot worth crap on targets. ...

I've never met anyone like that. I've met people who could shoot targets under controlled conditions but who had little field training and had great difficulty under field conditions. But I've never run across a good field shot who couldn't also do respectably on the range, even if not up to the level of a crack, precision target shot.

[Nitesites]

Under the most general of circumstances.. maybe. Every armed conflict is unique and the best possition (moving or fixed) can only be determined in the moment.

I see this as reasonable. I also see a certain logic that movement, specifically mine, is acumen in defensive gunfighting. If you only practice/train/drill static then you most likely will react as you have trained...motionless.

Edit : I feel I must reiterate. The idea is to remove your physical self out of the line of fire...movement is critical. Do not allow yourself to become a easy target. The key is to survive, not necessarily "shoot back" but if you must, be capable of returning fire with fair accuracy while on the move.

[redstategunnut]

Newton:

Would you post a list of the tactical classes that you have attended?

I'm curious what trainers you have taken a class from before forming this opinion.

[Hiker 1]

Not all tactical classes are alike. Some get a little silly, but some can be quite good.

Aside from that, stress inoculation is a critical element of preparation for high-stress events. That's why firefighters train with real flames, soldiers use both blank and live ammo, cops do shoot-don't shoot scenarios, etc. People tend to fall back on their training when faced with the real thing.

Personally, I'm not likely to sign up for a tactical carbine course, etc., but I do and will continue to take advanced handgun courses including an Active Shooter course I took a while back.

The more you sweat in training...

[Hiker 1]

I have yet to see one course or book where that type of response is considered. its always "robber stands in place soyou can shoot him, or robber walks in a small circle waving gun around".

Search around. There may not be one in your area, but if you are willing to travel, active shooter courses are taught to civilians.

[MikeNice81]

Newton, first of all you're on a gun site. Most people here are going to be a little more engaged in the ancilary activities attached to guns. They are going to go to more training courses, they are going to be more likely to shoot in competition.

It's just like going to a site dedicated to sports cars. More guys there are going to talk about going to driving schools and competitive driving. The numbers wil be higher than the normal population. The forum members are more dedicated to a particular "hobby" than the general population. So they do not represent the population at large.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with training. From what I've seen reading OIS reports, more training usually means staying healthy more often. What struck me first was that the difference between the success rate of 124gr+P 9mm and 180gr .40S&W was miniscule. Second, the guys that qualified expert and master on the range rarely did any better than a cop with similar training levels and lower qualification scores.

The guys (and gals) that did the best were usually the ones with more firearms training. The ones that took the classes on active shooter scenarios, basic SWAT training, gun retention and safety, and "high risk operations" training usually went home instead of to the hospital.

Training with knowledgable people will give you an advantage in a self defense situation. It will also prepare you mentally for an altercation. Training and practice lead to muscle memory reactions that can save your bacon.

[raimius]

In the programs that I have attended, static shooting is always taught first. It is the basis of all shooting. Usually, shooting from unusual positions is taught next. Shooting while moving is usually one of the last things taught, because it combines the previous skills and is inherently riskier to practice.

This is the logical progression, and most shooters either do not have the interest or do not put in the practice to get to more dynamic practice.

[westflfister]

The idea is not to move yourself out if the line of fire, the idea is to survive!! Too many individuals buy into the move to cover, draw weapon and defend self/family from cover or try to completely leave the area. Gunfights/ violent attacks are fast, dirty and scary. Logically, you can not out run a bullet. Google fatal shootings and you'll have access to thousands of articles detailing Gunfights/attacks. Where do these attacks occur? I'll help; driveway/front yard, gas station, apartment/ house, basketball court, night club and street.

Now, how many of these places offer adequate cover ( not concealment)? If you can name any, how fast can you run to these positions of cover if you were attack or in near proximity of a gunman? You would mostly be moving on a linear path, do you think I could walk rounds onto you while you were moving to cover? If no cover was available could I put rounds through your concealment?

In most situations you are more likely to survive if you immediately engage and end the threat. This may be from a traditional or non-traditional shooting position. Hit statistics in shootings is historically low, moving and shooting under stress is not recommended.

Lastly, "combat" is mostly static when it comes to shooting. If engage while on the move, you will be moving forward slowly. Think slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

[BGutzman]

yet i know people who did little target practice but lots of hunting, and do fine on animals but cant shoot worth crap on targets.

If you can hunt small game and hunt well then you can hit the target sufficiently for most self defense situations so long as your defending yourself with a weapon similar to what you hunt with.

Further the skills hunting requires translate farily well even with a non similar firearm so long as you practice regularly.

Target shooters still have some valuable skills for a self defense gun fight but trigger squeeze has to be translated to a trigger slap and knowing the proper lead for a BG could be a challenge.

[Lee Lapin]

With all due respect, someone who never took a class talking about tactical training is very much like a virgin talking about sex. Knowing how to shoot and be safe doing it, knowing how to hit game or clay birds/paper targets or steel, competing in combat shooting games is a good basic preparation in many ways but it does not necessarily translate to knowing how to fight successfully with a gun.

Not even formal military or LE training teaches as much as the best instructors out there in the private sector teach. Every private sector class I've ever had included at least a few students who were active duty military or LEOs, there on their own dime, looking to learn more about how to survive and prevail in a gunfight.

I'd wanted to take Louis Awerbuck's basic shotgun class for over a decade, after being a lifelong shotgunner. Work always got in the way. Finally a few years ago after I retired I finally got to go. I wish I'd been able to get into that class 30 years earlier. I was amazed at how much I learned.

No matter how much you know, you can always learn more. The state of the art is a moving target... it's always changing. The POIs change, what the same instructor knows and teaches from year to year changes. There is ALWAYS more to learn.

fwiw,

lpl

[sek2344]

I have never taken a Tactical Training Class and I never will. I'm not against you people who feel the need to train but it's not for me. I carried a Glock 19 as my duty weapon for 14 years as a Security Officer and had to qualify once a year. The only time I had to remove my gun from my holster was to clean it.
IMO, in a real gunfight for your self defense, there will be no time to use these tactics because things will happen so fast, the fight will be over in just a few seconds. Tactical Training is great for Police/Military people but not really for the average person who just carries for personal protection. You may think I'm crazy but I think all this Tactical stuff is just a waste of time and money. It's your time and your money so have fun!

[westflfister]

^^ Exactly what I am saying. In real life encounters you will most likely be out in the open and generally exposed with poor cover options and marginal concealment options. Your best bet is training on your draw stroke, shooting from every imaginable position and getting your heart rate up to simulate stress situations.

[MikeNice81]

Tactical Training is great for Police/Military people but not really for the average person who just carries for personal protection.

Have you ever watched what the typical officer involved shooting looks like? More often than not it is a sudden and suprising thing. The truth is, an officer involved shooting isn't much different than a civilian self defens shooting. The main difference is that the officer has a higher probability of being involved in a shooting because he must approach. Usually besides the approach they look pretty much the same.

The point of training is to develop muscle memory and a knowledge base. Once you know the general idea of the dynamics involved you train your body to work in certain ways. If you have good training - and practice - it increases your odds.

A lot of people have survived with no training. I think I'll stack the deck in my favor. Because the truth is, the criminals will not hesitate to stack the odds in their favor.

[threegun]

Quote:
A static target is far more vulnerable than a kinetic one

Under the most general of circumstances.. maybe. Every armed conflict is unique and the best possition (moving or fixed) can only be determined in the moment.

While I agree here I believe that what Nitesites is trying to say is that a moving target is harder to hit than a static one. Obviously running from behind solid cover out into the open isn't helpful.