Self-professed tacticool types don’t get it but serious trainers do. Solid fundamental shooting and gun handling skills, such as practiced in organized shooting events, are paramount to success in the field or in combat.
Force on Force training is the equivalent to sparing to boxers. Sparing prepares a fighter for the ring by going hands-on with a real person. As important as it is, sparing is not a substitute for conditioning, heavy bag work and the like. In shooting, dry practice, square range drills and formal events like competition are all important components, as is force on force training.
Quoting from that article, “Many “gunfights” were lost by the more inexperienced shooters due to forgotten manual safeties, fumbled draws and having a poor grip on their guns.” The author pointed out that solid square range training and shooting under some form of stress are prerequisites as crucial skills are learned and tested there before going hands-on.
I’ll say it again: Learn to shoot well enough in competition and you’ll have the fundamentals down well enough to apply anywhere else. Fail to do so and you’ll likely be the one fumbling presentations, forgetting safeties, and missing targets when it counts.
Read more here:
Firearm User Network 
Force on Force and Really Training For The Unthinkable | Handgun Club of America
Nov 28, 2011 @ 10:52:31
Nov 28, 2011 @ 13:34:53
Exactly—–“train as you fight” for that is how you will do everything. Or as my sign in my pistol classroom stated “When the feces hits the oscillating mechanism, you will do exactly what you practice doing right here, right now.”
LikeLike
Nov 29, 2011 @ 09:49:16
http://pistol-training.com/archives/5651
I found this when looking up the term “square range training”, a term I must confess to not understanding.
LikeLike
Nov 29, 2011 @ 12:48:05
“Square range training” typically refers to static live fire shooting exercises and drills. Imagine a line of shooters engaging an equally long line of target(s). The range is more or less square.
This is perfect for many kinds of shooting drills and is important for honing marksmanship and gun handling. Anyone that is a truly good shooter in any environment, be it tactical or elsewhere, will be good at “square range” drills. It is the basis of all shooting skill.
Dynamic and/or practical shooting drills that require a shooter to move about the range independently to address target(s) can’t readily be done safely with a long line of shooters so it isn’t “square range training.” This is useful, too, but only after square range drills are accomplished at an acceptably high level.
That article is spot on! http://pistol-training.com/archives/5651
LikeLike
Nov 30, 2011 @ 00:21:10
QUOTED:
“I’ll say it again: Learn to shoot well enough in competition and you’ll have the fundamentals down well enough to apply anywhere else. Fail to do so and you’ll likely be the one fumbling presentations, forgetting safeties, and missing targets when it counts.”
……….
Fortunately or unfortunately competition is not combat.
And people do not fight as they train, and most people do not even train.
If they did, the CQB hit rate would not be the dismal less than 20% that it is.
Sight Shooting which is good for competition and for shooting beyond gunfight distance is good. Apple pie is also good.
The rub is that if you are going to be shot and or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will happen at less than 20 feet.
And at that distance using the sights is most problematic given the time available and the activation of the fight or flight response to a CQ life or death situation.
For the average home defender, with a revolver or a modern double action pistol w/o manual safety, who is not carrying and in some place they probably shouldn’t be, fancy gun handling is not an issue.
To quote from: Shooting To Live With The One Hand Gun by Captain William Ewart Fairbairn and Captain Eric Anthony Sykes (1942), Fairbairn and Sykes.
“Target shooting has its place and we have no quarrel with it…There probably will be a quarrel, however, when we go on to say that beyond helping to teach care in the handling of fire-arms, target shooting is of no value whatever in learning the use of the pistol as a weapon of combat.
“The two things are as different from each other as chalk from cheese, and what has been learned from target shooting is best unlearned if proficiency is desired in the use of the pistol under actual fighting conditions.”
Further, the following closely approximates the text in Rob Pincus’s You Tube Video: Understanding Sight Alignment And Sight Picture In The Context Of Defensive Shooting.
It supports the use of AIMED Point Shooting or P&S as I call it for close quarters defensive shooting.
“… We do stress that the kinesthetic alignment, the unsighted fire, full extension in parallel with the line of sight,
under the most probable situations, the most probable distances, most probable combat accurate target area, the high center chest, is going to work for the overwhelming majority of people who take this course, from new shooters to experienced shooters, it really doesn’t matter,
both eyes open, focused on the threat, that’s how we start the fight, we recognize the need to use our gun, we go back down, we get the gun,
we drive the gun out along our line of sight and it magically ends up aligned as our finger would be or any other tool we use,
Human animals integrate with tools really well, and we can point in parallel with our line of sight really well,
those two things combine to put the bore line in parallel with our line of sight, at that two to ten to fifteen feet range, people do not have a problem getting good high center chest hits.
In a dynamic environment when the target is moving, we can track that motion lineraly with our eyes, keeping the gun in parallel with our line of sight. We lose the ability to do that if we focus on the front sight. If we are focused on the front sight, we lose the natural human …[histeric ?] for tracking linear motion if that target does happen to be moving or even just shifting.
We miss it, we are focused on the front sight, and we miss the target.
So, sighted fire is great for shooting tight groups and pieces of paper,…, and hitting under extreme precision situations, but not for the general default for defensive shooting, the fundamentals of defensive shooting are extend, touch, and press.
The fundamentals of target shooting come into play when we have a higher need for precision. Sights are put on a gun for precision.
In order to enhance our ability to control deviation, to …, we don’t need that high of a level of precision for most defensive shooting….”
LikeLike
Nov 30, 2011 @ 07:54:14
>> Fortunately or unfortunately competition is not combat.
No, it’s about getting off your ass and learning to shoot well enough to stop sucking.
“Competition” can be any format and target set up that the event directors want. It does not have to be bullseye or IPSC/IDPA or any other currently-established format.
Don’t like the current offerings? Make your own! What would be the ideal format to test the skills of AIMED Point Shooting or P&S you advocate for close quarters defensive shooting?
Make it a requirement that all handguns have the sights removed, or possibly taped over, and that they must use your aiming aid/shelf. (http://www.pointshooting.com/1aimaid.htm) Or, make it freestyle and allow participants to make use of a variety of techniques and see what works best. Set up targets and courses that you feel tests the most relevant skills and measure the results. It is YOUR event. You set the format.
Range exercises are not perfect simulations and can never simulate combat or field situations exactly. But they can be structured to train, test and reinforce relevant skills that will work. You have a free hand to set up the range and dictate the courses. Please tell us how you will do it.
LikeLike
Nov 30, 2011 @ 08:04:17
Just watched that video….
You’re poo-pooing competition as bad and the fact is practical competition shooters (IPSC, USPSA, IDPA, etc.) make use of these ideas and techniques.
In Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals by Brian Enos the author has an extensive section on the types of sight vs. target focus that work best for practical shooting competition. That book was originally published in 1990 and was based on ideas competition shooters were using through the 1980’s.
LikeLike
Nov 30, 2011 @ 12:30:44
I have nothing against competition shoots.
However, except for practicing gun handling ability, they reinforce and ingrain non close quarters combat related actions, such as using the sights, a two handed grip, and even a grip like Enos’s.
I came across two pictures in an article on the Handguns Magazine web site which show the grip of Brian Enos, and that of Dave Sevigny.
In the picture of Brian Enos’s grip, his thumbs do not touch the gun.
The description under the pictures reads: “Brian Enos believes one of the keys to a successful grip is having no contact by the thumbs along the side of the gun. The grip should happen strictly in the palms and fingers. Photo by Nidaa A. (Right) Dave Sevigny does touch the side of the gun with his thumbs and also considers that an important part of his technique.”
This is the URL: http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/combatg_100306/index5.html
In the vast majority of gun fights, the sights are not used, or there is no time to use them, or the fight or flight response will have kicked in and you won’t be able to focus on near objects like the sights; and according to the literature you shoot with one hand, and you also will have a crush grip on your gun. So if you plan to fight as you train, best not train in a way that is counterproductive to what is done in real world situations if you plan on staying alive in a real gun battle.
Gunfights are rare bird situations according to the stats and studies, so your chance of having to use your “combat honed” skills is really of a low probability. And if by chance there is a robber or house breaker in your future, chances are that if he/she has a gun and shoots at you, he/she will miss more than 80% of the time, and even if you are hit, you’ll probably survive.
Here’s some info from my article on the Rand Corp’s. 2008 report that was sponsored by the NYPD ( http://www.pointshooting.com/1arand.htm )
Firearm incidents get major play in the press. However, what does not get publicity, is that those incidents are relatively rare. Per the RAND report, it is statistically unlikely that an Officer will discharge his or her weapon during his or her entire career on the Police force.
For example: during 2006, only 156 Officers out of the force of some 37,000, were involved in a firearm-discharge incident. And fewer than half of those incidents involved an Officer shooting at a human being. Most involved Officers shooting at dogs.
Also, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ): “of the 43.5 million persons who had contact with Police in 2005, an estimated 1.6% had force used or threatened against them, a rate that was nearly the same as in 2002 (1.5%).”
The rarity of incidents might be a reason for not doing much if anything about them administratively. However, for the participants, they are deadly serious and personal. And if one goes badly, it can become a public relations nightmare for an Agency.
Per the report, firearms training has increased dramatically over the past 100 tears, as has the quality of weapons carried. But on average, there appears to have been very little improvement in the ability of Officers to hit their targets during the rare firearms incident.
The average hit rate for NYPD Officers involved in a gunfight between 1998 and 2006 was 18 percent. For every five shots, four bullets missed the intended target and went somewhere else. And that hit rate is consistent with the “normal” hit rate in armed encounters which hasn’t changed much for years and years.
The average hit rate for Officers who shot at subjects who did not return fire, was 30 percent. Officers hit their targets 37 percent of the time at distances of seven yards or less. And hit rates fell off sharply to 23 percent at longer ranges.
Also, Officers in gunfights fired 7.6 rounds on average, compared with an average of 3.5 rounds for Officers who fired against subjects who did not return fire. And most Officers have firearms with a capacity of well over 7 rounds, plus extra magazines.
FBI statistics show that life threat incidents happen at very close ranges. Between 1989 and 1998, of the 682 local, state, and federal law-enforcement Officers in the United States who died because of criminal action, nearly 75 percent (509) received fatal wounds while within 10 feet of their assailants.
Now, if you are wondering about the hit rates, and why they are so low, you need to understand that there is a “twilight zone” of sorts in the world of the gun, where reality can get intertwined with tales like The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Where else would you find job performance scores of 18, 23, 30, and 37 percent in life or death matters, to not result in a 911 call for all the King’s horses and all the King’s men.
The disconnect between on the range performance and on the street performance, is the long standing elephant in the room, and about which nothing much has been done other than recognize its existence. For years, the very low hit rate was attributed to error on the part of Officers.
What it boils down to IMHO, is that Officers are trained to shoot, but not how to shoot effectively in life threat situations, which is closely akin to sending soldiers into battle with guns but no bullets.
And beyond the cost in training dollars spent, is the greater cost of Officers injured or killed and the damage done to their families, plus the added costs of: collateral damages, disability pensions, replacements, legal actions, and etc. that flow from this state of affairs.
What would be good is for the GOV, gun makers, the NRA, and gun folks in general, to study what happens in real gun fights, and then let the world in on their finding/s.
That in turn would lead to training programs and competitions that would mirror what really happens.
When I have gone to the range, I have found that shooting at less than 20 feet gets boring after the first fifty rounds. I usually shoot strings of five, and usually shoot 100 rounds. I have found that my skill stays about the same from visit to visit and even when they are less than often.
Here’s a pic showing a target used. Note the caption.
At home I can use an airsoft pistol and move and shoot in my garage. I even have shot and hit pop cans tossed in the air.
Here’s a link to a you TubeVideo showing that. I’d say that my CQ shooting skill is quite good.
IMO, if you have a gun for self defense, you should know how to use it safely. Guns are lethal weapons, and killing is very serious business.
As to participating in some training or competition program to hone shooting skills, in anticipation of there needing to be used in some rare situation in the future:
I believe that for most, participating in competition is probably and practically, a less than productive use of time, other than being a social event wherein one practices what if killing games that lack proof of being a reflection of reality.
I would like to be more favorably inclined towards them. Perhaps my advanced age also dampens my enthusiasm. Also, nearness to where events take place also is a factor in participating or not.
Also, according to the literature, what one should do if a burglar or housebreaker appears, is go to a safe room and call the cops, and do nothing until they arrive and have cleared your house. That’s their job.
That also lessens the chance of needing and using training/competition honed handgun skills to save the day.
If I lived in an area where there was a good chance of me needing to defend my life with a handgun or rifle, I would move to a less adventurous setting. To do otherwise, would not make good sense.
For serious CCW gun carriers, FOF training with airsoft pistols or less than lethal munitions, makes sense to me as videos of shootings show that they are dynamic events.
LikeLike
Nov 30, 2011 @ 12:35:25
Here’s the links to the pic showing the enos grip and my target used at the range. Tried to enter them correctly, but it seems that is not the case. :)
Enos grip
Target used
LikeLike
Dec 01, 2011 @ 07:41:56
” [T]hey reinforce and ingrain non close quarters combat related actions, such as using the sights, a two handed grip, and even a grip like Enos’s.”
Below are direct links to the most recent copies of USPSA and IDPA handgun rules.
http://www.uspsa.org/rules/2010HandgunRulesProof3web.pdf
http://www.idpa.com/Documents/IDPARuleBook2005.pdf
Please cite the specific rule in these books that require the use of non close quarters combat related actions, use of the sights, a two handed grip, and even a grip like Enos’s.
Please cite the specific rule in these books that forbid using any technique you advocate.
Please cite the specific rule in these books that forbid setting up targets or a course of fire that, in your opinion, would be beneficial for police officers, NYPD or other, and serious CCW gun carriers.
LikeLike
Dec 02, 2011 @ 10:18:01
I love this. Actually, both side are correct which means it takes both skill sets to maintain the lever of proficiency necessary to survive a violent encounter. At Foothills Firearms Training Center we always start our training sessions with precision drills before moving to the dynamic drills then we always finish up with precision drills. We hold timed competition drills on the plates and dualing tree to create some stress. I encourage my students to join local IDPA, USPSA, or even bullseye groups in order to sustain their skills between training. I also know people who do not train but sit around and argue about which type of training is best. Our motto is Train to Fight, Fight to Win. website: http://www.cwpclass.com
LikeLike
Dec 02, 2011 @ 19:22:32
QUOTE”
“Please cite the specific rule in these books that require the use of non close quarters combat related actions, use of the sights, a two handed grip, and even a grip like Enos’s.
Please cite the specific rule in these books that forbid using any technique you advocate.
Please cite the specific rule in these books that forbid setting up targets or a course of fire that, in your opinion, would be beneficial for police officers, NYPD or other, and serious CCW gun carriers.”
……….
John,
I have no quarrel with you, or with competition shooting, or the rules they lay down.
Actually, I’m on your side as it comes to shooting excellence.
The rub is whether the excellence, which works on the range, will also work on the street.
And to say, allude, or infer that what will work in on on the range, will work on the street, without proof that it is so, is not good IMHO. I think that is what rules do, and I have some comments below about them.
As to what works on the range and what works on the street, I can shoot pop cans out of the air, and the same technique used in doing that is that which was used by Jack Ruby to shoot and kill Oswald.
Ruby was attacking not reacting, but the technique was the same and is recorded on tv and in pics for all to see. That is a good indication that it will work in real world killing situations.
And as far as I know, that technique is not used by competition masters. It’s actually laughed at and derided by many.
……….
What we do know about general competition shooting is that:
What is used in competition will most likely NOT be used in a gunfight.
For example, two handed shooting is often used in competition, but the NYPD’s SOP 9 long term study of thousand of CQB cases, and in which where in there is the greatest chance of being shot and or killed, Officers with few exceptions, shot with the strong hand.
The hit rate in CQB situations sucks (<20%), yet most of those trained in shooting have been trained to use their sights and to shoot two handed, which is what is done by most top competitors.
Also, the literature says in CQB you will have a crush grip on your gun, which is counter to what super professionals like Brian Enos uses.
So, I am perplexed.
I would at the least, like to see some facts that support the theory that the winning ways use in competition carry over into CQB.
I also don't question what rules are employed to govern participation, just their applicability to real world situations.
Lots of Sight Shooter types, and others think I am anti this or that, or that I am crazy, or on some conspiratorial mission with a plan to break their rice bowl. Just not the case.
I am not saying that what I proffer is better, just that what is touted by others as being what to do, does not mean that it is so – without proof that it is so.
Don't know why that sets some folks off, since if they knew that what they touted did actually work in real combat, they could most likely care less about what I say, and have proof of their wares at hand and freely available to any and all.
That "they" go off shift when questioned, is informative as to their convictions and proof of them.
I have a page on my site that FOR YEARS now is awaiting the posting of info/proof of Sight Shooting being used effectively in CQB. This is the link: http://www.pointshooting.com/1april1.htm As of 11/2011, it's empty.
If anyone has proof of it being used effectively in a ral CQB situation, send it my way, and I'll post it after a bit of checking
Here's a link to my article on how to shoot to kill more efficiently. It reiterates my thoughts on this subject. http://www.pointshooting.com/1alive.htm
……….
Thanks for allow me to comment on your site John.
Best to you for the Holidays, and the upcoming year.
As a long long time fan of westerns, I like Waylon Jennings modern song: I've Always Been Crazy, as I suppose many Texans do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ecE1UML1q8
Turn up the volume!
……….
PS
Took a look at the IDPA and USPSA rules. And here a few COMMENTS ONLY on the IDPA rules which I found to be less complicated and shorter.
Under the heading of PURPOSE, we find that:
IDPA is a shooting sport that uses practical equipment including full charge service ammunition to solve simulated “real world”
self-defense scenarios.
We also find that IDPA shooting events require use of practical handguns and holsters that are truly suitable for self defense.
The rule on the use of a holster may be a good idea safety wise, but AD/ND situations can arise in unholstering and in particular in reholstering for those who don't regularly carry and practice using a holster.
IMO, that requirement practically limits participation to just CCW folks who carry a gun for self defense. And as far as I know, very few people regularly carry a gun around their house or their apartment in a pocket or holster.
Also, according to the dated but still good NYPD's SOP 9 study over over 6000 Police combat cases, 65% of the Officers who had knowledge of impending danger, had their revolvers drawn and ready.
This is proper tactically for several reasons, the first being that holsters which are designed with the proper element of security in mind, do not lend themselves to quick draw. The old bromide, "Don't draw your gun and point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot" is a tactical blunder.
Opening up the competition to those who have the new mini and small capacity guns, and guns that are not carried in a holster would probably increase participation over time.
There are three IDPA approved reloads and they normally begin and end behind cover. They are: A. Tactical Reload, B. Reload with retention, and C. Slide Lock Reload (Emergency Reload). Reload specifications are found in Appendix TWO Approved IDPA Reloads.
According to the SOP 9, the average number of shots fired by individual Officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.
The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined.
In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action.
In 6% of the total cases the Officer reported reloading. These involved cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.
So, reloading does not appear to be a practical consideration for self defense purposes, nor a necessary part of the competition. Again, most home defenders don't carry a gun around the home in a holster and with extra mags attached to their belt.
Also according to Tom Aveni (who is not a fan of P&S :-) ), in the 1990-2000 period, NYPD shots fired per officer were between 3.6 and 6.9, with a mean of 5.2. Here's a link to another article dealing with rounds fired and is on the Police Policy Studies Council's web site: http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Files/Oregon/92-Oregonian_Study.htm
As to shooting distances, per CoF 2: Seventy-five percent of all shots required in a match must be fifteen (15) yards or less. Occasional targets out to thirty-five (35) yards are to be encouraged.
Now, since if you are going to be shot and or killed, there is an 80% chance that it will occur at less than 20 feet, and since most homes do not have rooms exceeding twenty feet from a practical self defense shooting standpoint, it seems logical to me that the rule should be that 80% of all shots must be 7 yards or less, and with a maximum distance of 10 yards.
Further, per the SOP 9:
From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.
Contact to 3 feet … 34%
3 feet to 6 feet …… 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ….. 9%
The shooting distances where Officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.
Contact to 10 feet … 51%
10 feet to 20 feet …. 24%
Per CoF 14 – CoF 17:
CoF 14. No “strong-hand only” strings of fire may require the
shooter to engage targets more than ten (10) yards distant.
CoF 15. No “weak-hand only” strings of fire may require the
shooter to engage targets more than seven (7) yards distant.
CoF 16. No “weak-hand only” reloading.
CoF 17. No head-box shots are to be required more than ten
(10) yards distant.
Per the NYPD study of over 6000 combat cases:
Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.
Per the rules re number of shots:
Keep the stage or course design within IDPA guidelines. Do not
exceed eighteen (18) rounds per string of fire. If any forms of
cover or props that represent cover are used as part of the stage,
then the contestant must use cover. Reloads must be accomplished
from cover if available.
See my comments above re number of rounds fired and reloads.
The rules also state that: Requiring multiple hits (i.e. 3-6 hits) on targets simulates real life encounters and should be encouraged. Given the above info re shots fired, and the fact that the recognized hit in gunfights is less than 20% and has been at that rate for years and years, such a rule runs counter to the reality of close quarters shooting.
STAGES:
The rules detailing stages, talk about drawing and firing 2 to the body and one to the head at 7 yards, drawing and moving and shooting at 10 yards, and drawing and shooting at 20 yards.
These "rules" are way way over the edge as they run counter to the reality of close quarters shootings and the recognized hit rate.
And if a non military or non police person was to shoot someone at a distance of 60 feet, they would in all probability end up bankrupt and/or in prison, or both.
More importantly, given what we know about real gunfights, practicing and ingraining skills that are not practical for use in real self defense situations, can set up a person to be shot and/or killed.
Real gunfights, where one has the greatest chance of being shot and or killed, happen at up close and personal distances. And, at close up distances, the Fight or Flight response will kick in so one can forget about using their sights given the time available to use them, the poor lighting which will be most likely, the dynamic nature of most of those situations, and the fact that they will lose their near vision which is necessary for focusing on the sights.
Shooting 5 shots or less, strong handed, at COM, and at under 7 yards while stationary or moving, would reflect reality, and be practical for defensive pistol use.
Of course, I don't expect that to catch on any time soon. :-)
LikeLike