The following was posted by David Williams, moderator of the Threat Focused forums, and is one of the best, most reasoned treatises I’ve read on the subject.
http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2298
Yes, the shooting world is dominated by competition shooters. I specifically exclude the word “sighted” because I believe that sighted vs. threat-focused and competition vs. real world are two different discussions, and to throw them together over simplifies the topic.
Competition shooting is what it is… it is a natural extension of our desire to compete at damn near everything that the human body can do – to pit our skill against the next guy and to see how we measure up. As a general rule people cannot take the afternoon off, go down to the range, and shoot at each other until one is either wounded or dead in an effort to measure skill. Likewise, you just don’t see two guys stepping into the alley behind the bar to have a little disagreement at 20 paces. We have an inherent desire to know who the better man is, who is more skilled, who is faster, more efficient, more accurate, and just all around more impressive. Who gets the girl? Who gets the bragging rights?
Another factor is that, to a certain degree, I believe that life and death are the ultimate yard sticks by which our skills are measured; and combat certainly provides that system of pass or fail, live or die. However, there is usually a shortage of on-demand life-or-death situations that we can involve ourselves in to get that experience. Instead, many turn to organized competition. For those of us lucky enough to see the elephant, spit in its eye, and bring home a story or two…well…we usually find that everything else tastes a little bland. Consequently we tend to look upon “sport” shooting as something less than a true measure of skill. One of my favorite phrases on the topic was one I heard many years ago (I can’t even give credit because I don’t remember where I heard it or if it was original) is:
“The difference between combat and sports is that in combat…you bury the guy that comes in second.”There’s just something about coming out the other side alive that makes us look upon practitioners of sport with a little disdain. As an aside, however, most of us know that on many occasions it was pure damn luck that brought us home. Regardless, it doesn’t change the way we look at it.
So we’ve got our pure sport shooters and we’ve got our combat vets who have gone toe to toe with an armed enemy and come out on top (LE included)…the two reigning authorities on the art.
But who do newcomers turn to for advice and guidance? Well.. by its very nature a sporting community is going to have piles and piles of theories as well as performance data to support those theories. They’ve also got people dedicated to fine-tuning their art until it’s as exact a science as it can be. That data is readily available, the knowledge there for those willing to learn. The techniques are specific and the results are measurable.
Let’s look at what the other side of the coin –
Unless one belongs to that select group of human beings known as Special Operations Forces, the opportunities for armed engagement over the past 50 years have been quite limited. From Korea to Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, I hear quite a bit of “I never even saw my sights”. But to be completely fair, Korea and Vietnam were different wars. One of the only things I learned about weapons employment from Vietnam was how important fire discipline is. It was enough of an issue that it resulted in a design feature in the next generation rifle; the M16A2. Full auto was replaced with a short three-round burst. Why? Because we learned that people weren’t aiming but were instead choosing quantity over quality when it came to sending rounds downrange. Within the context of our current conflict, Hue City was really the only battle with lessons that could be carried forward. Even then, nothing could prepare us for what we found in Fallujah in 2004.
My point here is that simply having survived combat doesn’t necessarily make us experts on what will and will not help us survive combat. Sometimes it just means that we were in the right place at the right time, and sometimes it really does mean that we have executed a series of well-timed decisions that ensured that we came out on top. Sometimes it means that we were masters of our training, and sometimes it means that we should have sat 6 inches to the left.
It’s hard to keep score in that world, and people want to know that the person they’re listening to has the highest score around.I will say this: that competition shooters have much to offer the trained killers. Had I spent half the time and effort practicing what they had to teach that the successful competition shooters do, I would have been a hundred times more deadly. It’s unrealistic to bring our world of life-and-death consequences into their world of precision sport…but it’s definitely worth our time to bring some of their precision into our world of life-and-death.
To sum it all up, it’s not the competition shooters that I have a problem with. It’s the competition shooters who believe that the stress of competing somehow overshadows the stress of being killed, and that somehow they are qualified to preach to me about how stress affects the body and mind. It’s the competition shooters who believe that everything they teach is applicable to real-world situations and that getting a high score in the last tournament somehow equates survivability under life-threatening stress.
Jewish Marksman
May 23, 2011 @ 21:00:02
“I will say this: that competition shooters have much to offer the trained killers.”
No disrespect to William’s insight, but there was a time when this was self-evident in America. Boys (and girls!) grew up hunting and target shooting–high schools had rifle teams.
Now, well:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/marksmanship-matters/
As a competitive shooter seeing our High Power and Bullseye ranks dwindle, I can think of nothing better than the renaissance that would be occur if our servicemen and cops “rediscovered” competitive shooting as Williams proposes!
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
May 24, 2011 @ 08:33:13
>> >> “I will say this: that competition shooters have much to offer the trained killers.”
>> No disrespect to William’s insight, but there was a time when this was self-evident in America.
Very true. People claiming to be trainers who decry competition shooting are betraying their ignorance of the field.
Competition shooting was invented to test and teach marksmanship. All forms of small arms training in the military can trace its roots directly back to High Power and Bullseye. The US Army’s first marksmanship manual program, later adopted by the US Marine Corps, was created and implemented by competition shooters. Look up the history of George Wingate and William Church for proof.
LikeLike
Jewish Marksman
May 24, 2011 @ 12:00:59
One thing I would add though, is that for many of us who only shoot for competition, the thought of shooting as some sort of combat skill does not regularly cross our minds. To me, shooting is a precision ballistic sport, like bowling, darts, golf, etc. but louder. My dad does yoga, and when we talk about our mindset and approach to practice, its the same–a deeply relaxing, and fun hobby when done correctly and patiently.
As I climb the classification ranks, I have learned I shoot better the less I care about the outcome, and the more I enjoy the mere process. I tend to shoot 10s when I don’t care about shooting 10s, and shoot 9s when I try to shoot 10s. Its all about getting the zone where nothing matters but proper, unconscious execution of the shot. No thoughts, just repetition of what has been perfectly practiced.
Maybe the people Williams criticizes are right, but for the wrong reason. The Samurai thought a warrior fights his best and without stress if he didn’t care about living or dying. (This concept is not as foreign to western culture as one might think…the Judeo-Christian tradition has warriors going into battle without fear based on faith, rather than the Samurai’s buddhist approach.) So while maybe that isn’t achievable for a lot of folks, it could be a lesson to take from competition: you perform better when your mind is focused on your performance and not on the consequences of the performance (like, oh, if I miss this shot I win or loose the competition, or oh, if I don’t shoot this guy first he’s going to shoot me…). That is a mental skill that takes a lot of time and experience to develop, and frankly, it keeps some shooters on a plateau (sure kept me on one for a year or so…). It goes hand in hand with self-confidence, and a deep belief that you will perform well and win!
Well, that’s about all a guy whose rifles are just expensive paper punchers can offer on the topic I guess ;-)
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
May 25, 2011 @ 13:03:13
This is spot on. The more times you successfully perform under pressure, even if it is simulated pressure as found in organized shooting, the more likely you will perform under pressure in the future. Most military and police qualification and training is designed for people to usually pass. Soldiers and cops expect to qualify. A gold star for everyone! Where is the pressure in that?
LikeLike
Christopher Jenkins
May 25, 2011 @ 23:30:01
I can’t confirm this, but I heard a story that a quick draw artist once challenged Audie Murphy to a quick draw match. Audie Murphy agreed, but the match never took place because he would only do it if they used live ammo. I think that story, even if it isn’t true, kind of sums up the distinction between the competition and the combat shooting mind sets.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
May 26, 2011 @ 07:08:37
And I take it you think this approach to the combat mindset is best. Good! Next time you are trying to learn a new task or testing a skill and fail to perform perfectly, just shoot yourself in the head as a consequence.
You messed up and now you must die, just like in combat. Go behind the berm and do the honorable thing.
Or, take this training and/or competition experience as a teaching point, be thankful the results weren’t lethal, and make an effort to improve based on what you learned.
LikeLike
Christopher Jenkins
May 26, 2011 @ 19:24:26
John, you take it wrong, I didn’t say anything about which approach was better. I simply thought that story did a good job of showing the extreme ends of the combat v/s competition spectrum.
Actually, I learned more about marksmanship in one competition (and the many hours of coaching/preparation that preceded it) than I ever learned my first 25 years in the Army. One competition showed me how little I really know about shooting. Since that first match, I’ve done all I can to get others interested in EIC and other shooting competitions. So, I’d have to say I lean strongly toward completion as the best training tool to ensure Soldiers hit what they aim at in combat.
Winning isn’t an accident, it takes a lot of time, effort and discipline. Surviving in combat is no different. Luck is nice, but nothing beats being prepared and confident in your ability to perform under any circumstances. I’m shooting in a EIC match next weekend. I’ve trained very hard for it using many of the dry fire, holding drills, and other techniques I’ve learned on this site. Don’t know if I’ll earn any more points, but I’ll let you know how it goes.
I hope everyone one has a great, safe, Memorial Day weekend!
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
May 27, 2011 @ 08:23:40
>> I didn’t say anything about which approach was better. I simply thought that story did a good job of showing the extreme ends of the combat v/s competition spectrum.
It is a good story and perspective. I was only showing the other extreme end of that spectrum.
I really appreciate the feedback and wish you well in your upcoming EIC event. Let me know how you do!
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams
Jun 02, 2011 @ 11:53:39
John:
I’m with you. I come from the competition end of shooting. Luckily, I had a very good instructor in the form of Capt. (Rtd) Arthur Dann. If my memory serves me he had been in charge of the Third Army Marksmanship Unit. Then, I had a week at AMU as a civilian, plus a work over by several others from AMU over the years.
When it came to learning Defensive/Combat Shooting from Kent Turnipseed I had to unlearn a whole bunch that was imprinted in my muscle memory. This was, of course, having to do with the new and proper stance learning to be able to simultaneously absorb and eliminate recoil. I took me three two day sessions to fully re-imprint my muscle memory. I guess I’m a slow learner.
My advantage over those that were totally new to shooting was that all other aspects of Defensive/Combat Shooting remained constant: proper grip, sight alignment, sight picture, breathing, finger position on trigger and trigger control.
One of the dangers of IPSC and IDPA are bad habits. The story goes, I believe, of a police officer when confronted with an armed assailant went into the “surrender” position. The assailant fired, missed, the cop shot back finally.
Remember what Wyatt Earp said, “Fast is fine, but accuracy is final.”
LikeLike
Christopher Jenkins
Jun 07, 2011 @ 09:00:28
John, my first Service Pistol Bullseye match was a lot of fun, but a very humbling experience. I only shot a 199 (70 S, 68 T, 61 R) with 4 misses. Don’t know if that’s good for a beginner, but shooting one handed was way more difficult than I thought it would be. I only shot one match, but came early to talk, ask questions and watch the other competitors. Wish I had been there the first day, three Grand Masters showed up from various states and set four national scoring records. This style of shooting is way different than the All Army, I learned a lot, mostly about myself. Things like the meaning of love, discipline, commitment and most of all, the truth, as it applies to marksmanship. Because no matter what, the bullets and targets always tell the truth. It’s up to me to accept the truth and continue working to refine my mind and body. Now I know why Zen is talked about so much in bullseye literature, it seems a quiet mind is key to success in this style of marksmanship.
LikeLike