And yet you continued the IDPA discussion in the rest of your post, knowing full well that every time you start some "I must defend IDPA" nonsense it always turns out bad. Give it a rest.Originally Posted by cclaxton
And yet you continued the IDPA discussion in the rest of your post, knowing full well that every time you start some "I must defend IDPA" nonsense it always turns out bad. Give it a rest.
I'm being brutally honest. If the typical civilian gun fight hardly ever involves taking cover, IDPA's religious adherence to the concept flies in the face of their self proclaimed mission statement to be "a sport based on real world self defense scenarios" or something to that effect.
I have played the game. I have many friends who like it. I still play it on occasion to stay in touch with them. But I've decided that I want no tactical pretensions out of my sports. So USPSA.
...nevermind
Last edited by KeeFus; 10-14-2014 at 01:00 PM.
I'm referring to this:
Range: 10 yards or less
Conditions: 85% low light
Actor(s): 1-3
Rounds fired:
1. shootings: 1-3
2. gunfights: many
Action of actors:
moving
strong hand
The following is lifted from a DocGKR AAR, however I've attended this same course and can personally vouch for hearing all these same things:
At the beginning of the first day, Ken outlined his thoughts on defensive shooting in contrast to competition shooting. He feels it is important to recognize the limits of competitive shooting and be cognizant of training scars that competition tactics can bring to real world shooting events; for example, it might not be prudent to FISH or clear a structure of a potential violent opponent using the same techniques which would be applicable for running a USPSA or IDPA stage. Ken has spent significant time studying the results of shooting incidents—video, AAR, and direct interviews with participants. For most real world applications of handguns in lethal force encounters, he felt the following was most likely and that effective training should reflect these factors:
-- 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.
As a result, he recommends that 70-80% of practice be done at 10 meters and in, with lots of shooting on the move, and an emphasis on boosting strong hand only skills. Inside 10 meters, shoot and move; at longer distances do as Paul Howe recommends and move quickly to the next position of cover and then shoot. Don’t leave a point of cover until you identify the next one. In order to improve, it is necessary to practice in a way that stretches a shooter's comfort zone—a shot timer and scored targets are mandatory. Practicing 200-300 rounds a week would be quite useful for most shooters looking to improve. Interestingly, Ken is not a huge proponent of dry firing; this is in sharp contrast to top shooters like Robert Vogel, Ben Stoeger, and others of that caliber.
Ken introduced the class to a simplified version of COL Boyd’s OODA loop—Vision, Decision, Action when addressing potential lethal force encounters. He recommended reading Jim Cirillo and Frank White; he also mentioned Frank Repass. What wins gunfights is not how fast someone can shoot, but rather how rapidly someone can make accurate hits to critical anatomic zones. The shooter must do what it takes to get accurate hits. Note that Ken emphasizes keeping the trigger finger indexed in the ejection port when not on target and demands strict muzzle awareness at all times, as these are the keys to safety in Ken’s experience, whether on a square range or in the 360/3D environment of the real world.
Last edited by Jay Cunningham; 10-14-2014 at 01:16 PM.
Most stage designs seem to test one or many aspects of the criteria Ken outlines. Most stage designs seem to meet our need to test ourselves as gun carrying citizens. If you approach it the wrong way and expect the wrong things you'll get the wrong results. You can also never compete in your life and train the wrong way, the wrong things, and still get the wrong results.I'm referring to this:
Then again you can also never do either and still come out on top.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I've heard the Hierarchy of Conflict used by Keith Jones and Claude Werner. It goes like this:
1) Armed Confrontation - at least two people confront each other, at least one is armed. Think guy pulls knife, guy draws gun and challenges, guy drops knife.
2) Shooting - at least two people confront each other, only one fires shots. Think first guy pulls gun and threatens, other guy draws gun and shoots first guy before he can shoot.
3) Gunfight - at least two people armed with firearms and both exchange shots.
3b)Gun Battle - at least two people armed with firearms and both exchange shots and at least one maneuvers to better position.
Gun battles are similar to gunfights except that gun battles tend to be longer events time wise and involve maneuver by at least one party. Gun battles tend to be marked by a very high level of emotional commitment by at least one party - someone is going to die or die trying to kill the other. To roughly quote Claude - "If he's moving and he's not running away, he isn't coming over to shake your hand."
The Newhall Massacre or FBI Miami Firefight or North Hollywood are the most obvious example of a gun battles.
Last edited by John Hearne; 10-14-2014 at 01:35 PM.
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
I appreciate waxing philosophical as much as the next guy, but I was asking a more practical question directed towards John Hearne and the other conversants regarding cover and aggression, and the nature of a "typical" gunfight and if there is in fact a difference in a shooting/gunfight or if this is just semantics.
Good info - thanks much.
Unless he has a really good explanation, I can't agree with him on dry firing. Done in a methodical, disciplined manner, it is a huge skills multiplier.Interestingly, Ken is not a huge proponent of dry firing; this is in sharp contrast to top shooters like Robert Vogel, Ben Stoeger, and others of that caliber.
I have copies of the whole works but good summaries can be found here:
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/74.html
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/75.html
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
Reply With Quote
