It’s been said that tactics are more important than skills like marksmanship.
Which tactics?
In a discussion with Jason Falla (Redback One) I pointed out that his Combat Fitness Assessment – Sprint course is just a modified, reduced, shorter distance version of Run Down matches shot in Service Conditions military shooting competition. He scoffed that competitions don’t require ambidextrous shooting as needed in the real world to properly use cover, but his course does, thus making it more tactical.
When I pointed him to links showing AASAM (Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting) and AFSAM (Armed Forces Skill at Arms Meeting) military match programs detailing courses of fire requiring ambidextrous shooting and testing the same things, he scoffed again and said that I was just a competition shooter and therefore don’t know anything about tactics. Guess my two decades of military experience and law enforcement firearm and tactics instructor credentials don’t count when merely pointing out his factual error. Consider the reasons why this former ADF soldier-turned-instructor never attended (much less won) ADF-hosted events testing the same skills he now takes money to teach.
While attending a course hosted by Paul Howe at his CSAT school, Mr. Howe expressed his displeasure with competition shooting. When asked for an example, he replied that competition shooters have too much emphasis on ambidextrous shooting than is needed real world. The Howe/CSAT tactical approach to using cover is to always shoot strong shoulder, move aggressively from cover, own the area and “service” threats as needed.
Falla and Howe both teach tactics and shooting in tactical situations, yet they don’t agree on a simple tactical approach on how an individual is best able to shoot around and use cover. The tactical approach taken by Howe will “getcha killed” for failing to use cover properly in Falla’s eyes, and the tactical approach taken by Falla will “getcha killed” for being too slow in Howe’s eyes.
This is disagreement for the “proper” use of cover by an individual. I can only imagine how much they diverge on team tactics or something more complex.
A fellow instructor that teaches at a local law enforcement academy tells his students that, “The tactical approach that let me survive my first gun fight would have gotten me killed in the second.” His point is that tactics are basically applied common sense and that the “best” tactic in one situation might be a poor choice in another.
Fundamental skills and abilities, however, always apply. Marksmanship, good gun handling and fitness are examples.
Firearm User Network 
Jul 05, 2014 @ 09:09:31
As I happily used to say to soldiers when firing successfully; “Oh noooo, not the fundamentals Sarge!
LikeLike
Jul 05, 2014 @ 17:46:03
John,
What it ultimately boils down to is training that exposes you to as many different variations as possible. Adhering to one single operational method that might not fit every possible set of circumstances is a recipe for failure at some point, if preparing to fight a living, breathing, thinking adversary is your business. Our community needs to be willing to accept that even the best instructors don’t have a lock on the one answer fits all solution to every armed encounter.
LikeLike
Jul 05, 2014 @ 19:57:48
>> What it ultimately boils down to is training that exposes you to as many different variations as possible.
Exploring different variations is fine but this is not training. Novices playing at endless variations while never advancing skills beyond novice levels will forever remain novices. They’ve just had a chance to perform as a novice in many different scenarios.
>> … if preparing to fight a living, breathing, thinking adversary is your business.
A good way to do this is to think and perform faster than most people, which requires advancing skills beyond a novice level. Too bad so few are interested or capable of that.
>> Our community needs to be willing to accept that even the best instructors don’t have a lock on the one answer fits all solution to every armed encounter.
Which was my point. A tactic is merely an expedient toward a goal in a given situation. A tactic that is an effective expedient in one scenario may be ineffective, possibly dangerously so, in a different scenario. Many expedients may work in one, specific situation.
At the moment of truth, one will have to decide – quickly – upon an action. A novice fumbling with fundamental skills and capabilities is less able to so than someone with higher skills.
Despite popular myth, this is the reason competition shooters have historically performed so admirably in combat.
LikeLike
Jul 11, 2014 @ 12:56:00
Wrong tactics will probably get you killed faster than bad marksmanship, but good marksmanship needs to be ingrained as an unthinking automatic reflex, freeing your conscious mind to concentrate on proper tactics.
LikeLike
Jul 11, 2014 @ 16:26:16
Well said!
LikeLike