Will competition get LEO's or Armed Civilians killed?

[John Hearne]

Regarding useful competition, I would point out that Tom Givens might know something about the concept. If you look at the side match at the Tactical Conference, it's about as useful as you can get. There is a set of standards, typically on two targets (which are anatomically correct) that measure your raw shooting ability. Then there are several stages with 3-D reactive targets that are typically shot in low or diminished light. The match is run without a walk through so you can't get comfortable and build a shooting plan to simply run. There are generally more no-shoot targets than shoot targets and hitting a no-shoot carried a draconian penalty (200 seconds).

This is a video from the 2007 Conference when it was at the Memphis PD range, where we'll be again in 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lBLLOxyulY

If you bump to 4:15, this is the 2013 Conference which only had one scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ehpoOCVHc

[Jay Cunningham]

This whole conversation is very interesting to me; lots of great stuff to chew on.

[John Hearne]

Or shooting better than them on the way to cover....not to derail anything by introducing the shoot-on-the-move vs. move-plant-shoot vs. shoot static discussion.

If you look at the research I reference, moving was a far more common response (40%) versus using cover (15%).

If you haven't heard it, you really need to hear Jeff Hall's take on shooting and moving in his "Finish The Fight" lecture. Or Paul Howe's essay here: http://www.combatshootingandtactics....March_2011.pdf

[Mr_White]

If you look at the research I reference, moving was a far more common response (40%) versus using cover (15%).

If you haven't heard it, you really need to hear Jeff Hall's take on shooting and moving in his "Finish The Fight" lecture. Or Paul Howe's essay here: http://www.combatshootingandtactics....March_2011.pdf

Have not heard Jeff Hall's lecture - any reference around to it?

I know Paul Howe is an advocate of move-plant-shoot.

I've seen too much ability to shoot pretty accurately while moving pretty quickly to dismiss it entirely. I definitely don't think it's the answer I once did though.

[RJ]

One of the greatest benefits of competitive shooting is to harness the deep human drive to win, and moreover, to prepare to win. That's a very powerful thing. It motivates people to practice, to prepare, to do the work necessary to succeed. I think it's best to throw oneself headlong into the competition and try to win – regardless of self-imposed handicaps. Let competition hook your ego and make you want to win. Because that's why you're going to do the work necessary to become great, and how competition is going to give you the most pressure to have to perform under.

Woah. Very high signal to noise ratio in this thread. Fascinating.


OrigamiAK, the above really resonated with me, personally. Taking up USPSA at age 56, it captured the essence of where my head is at. Thanks.

Rich in Tampa

[Dagga Boy]

For some of us, the overwhelming desire to win at all costs is actually where the problems arise. The biggest issue I had shooting competitively was an inability to do what Dr. No is so good at, which is total separation. This is a personal and uniquely individual part of the equation. Honestly, some people probably need to have something to do to build that desire to win. It will help in a life or death conflict. I have been in too many situations where I guarantee I would be dead if it wasn't for my "competitive nature" to do ANYTHING to win......and I have done stuff that would turn many normal people's stomach's. In my 20's, I could not turn that off shooting. I wanted to win matches. I would game the crap out matches. After some serious training, reflection, and seeing the results through my intense study and investigation of the relationship between training (or other repetitive practices) and actual shooting events opened my eyes to some problems. Hell, I was gaming a couple of the drills during the Given's Instructor class.

Later, I did try some IDPA and went in mentally prepared to not win. To just shoot the problems "correctly". It was a disaster. It wasn't "one guy" going banana's over tac-loads and holster to a draw and administrative unload and show clear, it was several. I was chided by several R/O's for improper use of cover (I would be a couple of yards off of a barricade and pie them). Improper order and handling of a hostage problem (where the guy running the match was so embarrassed that he had a discussion with the R/O of that stage that lecturing a guy who trains a SWAT team that has done numerous successful hostage rescues on how screwed up I was made them look stupid) made me realize that IDPA was not going to be my game, even if I was trying not to win and just shoot the problems. Looking back, it really wasn't fair to the R/O's with me trying to turn their sport with their sports rules into my own "shooting other peoples problems" training event. I concluded if I wanted correct tactical training I needed to spend my weekends at actual training places with real tactical trainers. The payoff worked FOR ME far better than trying to turn IDPA matches into a training event.

Currently, I miss the competitive play shooting, and found a means to scratch that itch that will have no negatives that I can see that will effect my firearms training for real world problem solving.

Again, I had access and personal experience to see the issues first hand that most will never have. I have tried to pass some of that information on that there are some issues. Some believe me, some don't. Roll the dice, and make a decision on what works for you.

[Tom Givens]

I have known Ken Hackathorn since the mid-1970s and have trained with him on numerous occasions. I can attest that as of last September the following quote is pretty much verbatim what he says in class:

-- 92% of encounters at 10 meters or less
-- 85-87% in low light conditions
-- Number of rounds fired ranged from 2-3 in a shooting (one individual firing) to nearly always fully emptying the magazine in gunfights (multiple individuals shooting)
-- Typically 1-3 attackers
-- Opponents are frequently moving and do not remain static
-- Many times individuals responding to unanticipated violence shoot with strong hand only.

There was actually one period of time that greatly impacted Ken's thoughts on this matter. In several days at the FBI HRT training facility at Quantico as the guest of Scott Warren when Scott was their head firearms instructor, Ken stayed in a sort of dorm room at the Academy. At night he sat and watched hours and hours of dash cam video of police officer involved shootings that were kept there at the Academy. Watching literally hundreds of police shootings on these tapes, helped form the opinions stated above.

Someone wanted to know how Ken's list overlaid with our students' experience. Let's look at it line by line.

Ken- 92% of encounters at 10 m or less-- absolutely. In our shootings 90% were 3 to 5 yards. Three out of 64 occurred at or beyond 15 yards. Two occurred at contact distance. All the rest between 3 and 7 yards.

85-87% in low light conditions- to a degree this is hard to define. Many of our students' shootings occurred during the hours of darkness (6pm-6am) but there was sufficient light from streetlights, indoor lighting, or well lighted parking lots. Not a single one of our students used a flashlight nor did any of them report a need to use one.

Number of rounds fired ranged from 2 to 3 in a shooting (one individual firing) to nearly always fully emptying the magazine in gunfights (multiple individuals shooting)- Again, this mirrors what we see. Our average number of shots is about four although we have had shootings involving 8, 11, and 12 rounds fired by one individual.

Typically 1 to 3 attackers-- same as us.

Opponents are frequently moving and do not remain static-- Less so in our cases. Movement by the perpetrator is typically involved in fleeing once they have been shot or shot at. Only three or four of our students did any significant moving, generally involving sidestepping to get out from in front of the opponent's muzzle, and one student who rapidly charged straight toward the suspect while firing. Most stood their ground and shot well.

Many times individuals responding to unanticipated violence shoot with strong hand only-- As I said Ken was watching videotape after videotape of police officer involved shootings. This is a recurring problem in law enforcement due to poor and insufficient training. Most officers only shoot when mandated, and most agencies only shoot once per year. Obviously, there are agencies with better and more frequent training, but sadly they are rare. For many of these officers their annual qualification course is the only shooting they've ever done and many of those qualification courses require shooting with one hand at 7 yards and under. We see the opposite. Our students are taught to only shoot with one hand IF THEY ONLY HAVE ONE HAND AVAILABLE. As a result, most of our students go to two hands and eye level. As a result, they get hits.

[John Hearne]

Have not heard Jeff Hall's lecture - any reference around to it?

Not sure how much I can post with regards to copyright concerns - full read here: https://www.swatmag.com/articles/finish_the_fight This is a good overview:

When my fellow Alaska State Trooper Randy Crawford called me, he’d just been in his second gunfight.

He was P.O.’d because he’d fired several shots from his AR at a range of ten yards and had missed completely. He wanted to know what he was doing wrong.

We kicked it around for a few minutes and found the problem: Randy was shooting on the move, trying to get to cover while firing at the goblin. Like most departments, we trained in the most cost-effective manner: plant your feet, pick your target, and shoot on command. However, the department also told us that if we got in a real gunfight, we should move to cover, too.

I told Randy that the next gunfight he got into, he should do what we’d trained to do—stand on his hind legs, put the front sight in the middle of the bad guy, and shoot until he couldn’t see him anymore. Six months later, Randy did just that. He fought the way he’d been trained and hit the guy five for five with a Remington 1100 loaded with 12-pellet Magnum buckshot … gimme an amen!

Jeff's lecture goes into more detail about the first two shootings and the training that preceded them. It was 2007 when I heard Jeff speak but IIRC, he thought that you could teach people to shoot well while moving but that almost no agency had the resources (time/money/ammo) to actually do it right. By right, I mean deliver it in the field in actual fight.

[Jay Cunningham]

I have known Ken Hackathorn since the mid-1970s and have trained with him on numerous occasions. I can attest that as of last September the following quote is pretty much verbatim what he says in class:

-- 92% of encounters at 10 meters or less
-- 85-87% in low light conditions
-- Number of rounds fired ranged from 2-3 in a shooting (one individual firing) to nearly always fully emptying the magazine in gunfights (multiple individuals shooting)
-- Typically 1-3 attackers
-- Opponents are frequently moving and do not remain static
-- Many times individuals responding to unanticipated violence shoot with strong hand only.

There was actually one period of time that greatly impacted Ken's thoughts on this matter. In several days at the FBI HRT training facility at Quantico as the guest of Scott Warren when Scott was their head firearms instructor, Ken stayed in a sort of dorm room at the Academy. At night he sat and watched hours and hours of dash cam video of police officer involved shootings that were kept there at the Academy. Watching literally hundreds of police shootings on these tapes, helped form the opinions stated above.

Someone wanted to know how Ken's list overlaid with our students' experience. Let's look at it line by line.

Ken- 92% of encounters at 10 m or less-- absolutely. In our shootings 90% were 3 to 5 yards. Three out of 64 occurred at or beyond 15 yards. Two occurred at contact distance. All the rest between 3 and 7 yards.

85-87% in low light conditions- to a degree this is hard to define. Many of our students' shootings occurred during the hours of darkness (6pm-6am) but there was sufficient light from streetlights, indoor lighting, or well lighted parking lots. Not a single one of our students used a flashlight nor did any of them report a need to use one.

Number of rounds fired ranged from 2 to 3 in a shooting (one individual firing) to nearly always fully emptying the magazine in gunfights (multiple individuals shooting)- Again, this mirrors what we see. Our average number of shots is about four although we have had shootings involving 8, 11, and 12 rounds fired by one individual.

Typically 1 to 3 attackers-- same as us.

Opponents are frequently moving and do not remain static-- Less so in our cases. Movement by the perpetrator is typically involved in fleeing once they have been shot or shot at. Only three or four of our students did any significant moving, generally involving sidestepping to get out from in front of the opponent's muzzle, and one student who rapidly charged straight toward the suspect while firing. Most stood their ground and shot well.

Many times individuals responding to unanticipated violence shoot with strong hand only-- As I said Ken was watching videotape after videotape of police officer involved shootings. This is a recurring problem in law enforcement due to poor and insufficient training. Most officers only shoot when mandated, and most agencies only shoot once per year. Obviously, there are agencies with better and more frequent training, but sadly they are rare. For many of these officers their annual qualification course is the only shooting they've ever done and many of those qualification courses require shooting with one hand at 7 yards and under. We see the opposite. Our students are taught to only shoot with one hand IF THEY ONLY HAVE ONE HAND AVAILABLE. As a result, most of our students go to two hands and eye level. As a result, they get hits.

Fantastic! Thanks Tom!

[GJM]

Tom, thanks for taking the time to respond.

1) your data base of student shootings is fascinating. Is the detail available anywhere, and if not, have you considered compiling this information, perhaps with names deleted, as a resource for students of defensive pistolcraft?

2) I have heard a quote attributed to you -- that the reason you switched from a 1911 to a G35, is the 1911 is a two bad guy gun in a 3-4 bad guy world?

3) copy on the flashlights. Did any of your student shootings involve the use of a laser?

4) similar question -- did any of your students use long guns?