Re-holstering on the clock, good, bad, or indifferent?

[Josh Runkle]

Guns are not toys. Don't play games with guns.

Maybe I'm wrong, but, I think Jack Ryan meant: treat something that is capable of harming someone as if it is capable of harming someone.

Or:

Don't be a dick while dicking around with guns.

I didn't take it to be an anti-shooting sports statement.

[abu fitna]

I have seen a few scenario based training evolutions in which shooters are required to run dry on long gun, transition to pistol; then in a period of comparative lull (but still "on the clock" for overall evo), reload pistol, reholster, get long gun back in action, then advance from cover to complete the next phase of the problem.

More than a few practitioners rushed this particular lull more aggressively than I was happy with. And these were relatively experienced folks, but they were amp'ed up from the first strings of the stage, and things started to get sloppy. (Particularly depending on position taken when seeking available cover.)

Likewise, a few scenarios involved an initial problem presented when the shooter was armed only with their EDC pistol, but which required them to fight to a long gun. These scenarios have included some battlefield pickup type foreign weapons problems, when the shooter may not have had much prior experience with that particular platform. Complicating this, the shooter was also required to validate both readiness and acceptable condition of the recovered weapon (where examples of unacceptable condition were included on some evolutions). These weren't just cold stages - crawl / walk instructional phases had preceded the run - but even so, students tended to get sucked in the long gun problem and do some less than ideal things with regard to their use of cover, proper holstering of the pistol, and tactical reload / ammunition management.

So while I can see a few different use cases where one might wish to introduce problems to a shooter that would require management of a loaded pistol under time constraints, I don't think the majority of these are really appropriate for normal competition. At least in terms of folks tendancies to race the few seconds advantage in scoring terms. Start and stop the timer between phases for sport, or change to a dump point design.

[Lon]

I've done a lot of 3 gun competitions over the years, including some of the majors (Ft Benning, USPSA Nats, Rock Castle, etc) as well as ROing a bunch of local matches. Having seen what I've seen over the years, I would not allow the hot reholstering of a pistol. No point to it, in my opinion. The risks are too great. Dump designs are easy to set up, why tempt fate?

[JWinTN]

I've shot some local matches that required holstering hot during a stage. Wasn't a real big deal, but we are a relatively small group that had an understanding of the results of doing it wrong. For me, I tend to holster slow on the clock or off. I don't see the point of it in a generalized match setting, and safety being paramount in the typical match environment, what's the point in taking the risk for little benefit?

Here's one with pictures from what is described as an "action match": http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread....D-GSW-at-Match

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Maybe I'm wrong, but, I think Jack Ryan meant: treat something that is capable of harming someone as if it is capable of harming someone.

Or:

Don't be a dick while dicking around with guns.

I didn't take it to be an anti-shooting sports statement.

My read was "if you can't handle people shooting themselves periodically, go knit sweaters or something".

Just my interpretation...


As far as reholstering goes, I do it hot all the time, like most people here. But when it comes to a competitive environment that encourages people to shave tenths off, doing it on the clock?

I would prefer not to.

Bartleby the Scrivener. Anybody?

[Jack Ryan]

I'm saying the same thing people have said about guns nearly since their invention, guns aren't toys.

Games are just games. They have rules and everyone is expected to play by the rule. If it get's too dangerous then they change the rules. People who want to win will stretch the rules, they'll lobby to change the rules. What ever.

Games aren't real life and playing games is not training to survive a shooting situation.

I just see a lot of hypocrisy in the gun community and game playing, safety concerns, and after the event quarterbacking. Be it a defensive situation, a family tragedy, a self inflicted AD, there are always people who want to make a new set of "rules" some one shoulda, woulda, coulda been doing "and that's why it will NEVER happen to me..."

Toys or not, guns are dangerous to use. If you use something dangerous enough, sooner or later someone is going to get hurt. Something you don't expect to happen is GOING to happen. Don't matter if it's a chainsaw, a gun, a bucket or a sharp stick.

I don't know the answer to everything, I just know I don't like seeing people get hurt because of ignorance, mistakes, stubbornness, or carelessness.

There's a thread about getting your heart rate up while shooting. You can't be seriously training yourself for a self defense situation and NEVER shoot under physical and emotional distress. I've done some improvisational shooting events similar in theory to biathlons, 3 D archery shoots. I've got a couple little courses at my own place I'll run once in a while. I've heard and understand the rational for running with your weapon in hand. I don't buy it. I don't do it, at least I don't plan to do it. If you don't have your weapon in your hand and you are being attacked, where is it going to be? If it might go back in the holster during a threat engagement, then you better practice it.

You can't guess when, where, or what might happen and especially what will happen after the first shot but I know one thing. Shooting competition, tin cans at home, to the death in a Walmart parking lot, guns are not toys. They are not for playing games. You are teaching tigers to sit on a stool and roar when you play games with guns. Someone could get hurt if they aren't careful.

[Josh Runkle]

I stand corrected.

[Lon]

Games aren't real life and playing games is not training to survive a shooting situation.

I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise. I don't. Gun games test SKILL. Nothing more.

I've heard and understand the rational for running with your weapon in hand. I don't buy it. I don't do it, at least I don't plan to do it. If you don't have your weapon in your hand and you are being attacked, where is it going to be? If it might go back in the holster during a threat engagement, then you better practice it.

That's the point of this thread. This isn't training for a lethal force engagement. It's a fricking game. You need to separate the two.

You can't guess when, where, or what might happen and especially what will happen after the first shot but I know one thing. Shooting competition, tin cans at home, to the death in a Walmart parking lot, guns are not toys.

Nobody said they were toys.

They are not for playing games.

Disagree completely. Guns have been used for competition (games, if you will) for hundreds of years.

You are teaching tigers to sit on a stool and roar when you play games with guns.

No idea what this means.

Someone could get hurt if they aren't careful.

And that's why we have rules. To minimize the chances of this happening. I've been shooting competition (USPSA) for 20 years. I'm less concerned with someone getting hurt at a USPSA/IDPA match than I am when teaching newbies in my CCW classes.

[Failure2Stop]

How about:
Guns are dangerous, treat them accordingly.

Because, really, that's the central theme of all this stuff with rhetoric removed.

[rd62]

Safety first. Whether it's designing a stage or shooting it. I think you can try and design around stupid but some of the responsibility certainly falls on the shooter too. It's better to sacrifice a second or two for safety then shoot yourself, especially if other safer means are at your disposal.