Using cover / tactics - always against a rifle or always against a pistol?

[voodoo_man]

I had a conversation with a training supervisor the other day and he told me that the tactics he/they/the unit teaches is always against pistols since the probability of rifles being used is so slim there is no reason to teach that level of safety.

So my question for you guys is, do you train tactics / cover against rifle threats or pistol threats? Keep in mind rifle threats will obviously cover any pistol threat but pistol threats will not cover rifle threats...

[Duelist]

Most of my "real" training was in the Army, so cover was primarily about rifles and MG bullets - IOW, get low, use a whole lot of dirt, large trees, concrete, etc.
What I do now is more about concealment than cover, since most modern construction won't stop most pistol bullets, let alone rifle rounds. The idea I am operating under is, if they can't see me, yes, they might try to shoot me anyway, but, what are they shooting at? Odds are much less that I'll get hit if they can't see me.

[ffhounddog]

We do training against rifles mainly but we have team tactics too being Army. Police you could be the only one and the pistol is there. The biggest issue is trying to break away from a rifle threat with only a pistol.

My wife and I discuss this alot now.

[Ntexwheels]

With the state of society as it is these days, I think it wise to train against both scenarios. As has been seen over the last few years there have been quite a few instances where gunmen have used rifles in their shooting sprees.

Even though many of us aren't active duty soldiers faced with full blown combat duties and risks, there is still that danger from the butt head that has decided to bonkers on everyone using a rifle to do so.

[Kevin B.]

I am cannot think of a reason why my tactics would change based on the threat's weapon. My definition of cover might change (which would inform my application of tactics) but my tactics would not change.

[GJM]

I think we have been dancing around this issue since the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. Related topics have been:

what handgun do you carry

how much spare ammo

what kind of BUG

handgun vs carbine measured performance

My personal, anecdotally informed view, is that, always subject to the vagaries of luck, in handgun on handgun, Givens type defensive scenarios, our PF strong practiced members would do very well. I see rifle on handgun encounters differently. See the recent post by Talionis, describing how much more effective the long gun is in his hands than the handgun, despite his primary emphasis on handgun training. Probably the same reason most hunters use a long gun and most military forces use the long gun as primary.

If the bad guy or guys has a long gun, my personal view is the odds got a lot worse and your required technical ability to be successful just went way up.

[Chance]

What do you gain by treating them differently? Honest question, I've never been shot at.

[voodoo_man]

What do you gain by treating them differently? Honest question, I've never been shot at.

As I stated, if you train to use cover specifically against pistol caliber you can get away with a lot more than you would if you were to train against rifle caliber.

Vehicle, for example are butter to most rifle calibers (especially 762).

[Lon]

I had a conversation with a training supervisor the other day and he told me that the tactics he/they/the unit teaches is always against pistols since the probability of rifles being used is so slim there is no reason to teach that level of safety.

I've heard some dumb shit when it comes to police training, that's right up there towards the top level of dumb shit I've heard spouted. Train for the worst case, hope for the best. Not train for the best case and hope the worst case never happens.

[voodoo_man]

I've heard some dumb shit when it comes to police training, that's right up there towards the top level of dumb shit I've heard spouted. Train for the worst case, hope for the best. Not train for the best case and hope the worst case never happens.

PD training is usually complete shit, taught by complete shit instructors reciting from textbook/lesson plan bullshit.

[BehindBlueI's]

Both of our injured officers in the past month were shot at with rifles. One was hit in the arm, one was just hit by auto glass. Our last officer line of duty death was from a rifle. It's to the point a lot of patrol guys are using rifle inserts in their body armor, so probabilities may look a little different to me.

Perhaps I don't get the question, but tactics are largely the same. What counts as "cover" vs concealment may change.

[voodoo_man]

Both of our injured officers in the past month were shot at with rifles. One was hit in the arm, one was just hit by auto glass. Our last officer line of duty death was from a rifle. It's to the point a lot of patrol guys are using rifle inserts in their body armor, so probabilities may look a little different to me.

Perhaps I don't get the question, but tactics are largely the same. What counts as "cover" vs concealment may change.

As I stated in the OP, what is cover against pistol caliber may not be for rifle, but what is cover for rifle may be for pistol. So while there may be slight differences the big take away is that you should have a reason for such training.

I brought this us as I went to an in service training for FoF and they tried to teach us using the A-Pillar as cover....no thanks.

[MD7305]

William Petty has a vehicle CQB class that discusses that very thing. I don't know if its more handgun or long gun oriented though but from what I've read he discusses many more points of cover on a vehicle aside from the engine block, wheels, etc. His course sounds interesting, its on my wish list.

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/vcqb

[LSP552]

Good bonded pistol ammo seems to almost make this a moot point. Also, I know this is probably location driven, but dealing with long gun armed criminals is not uncommon for my agency. Like anything else, awareness of your adversary's capabilities is always a good thing, training and making a least common denominator as a default is not.

[Kevin B.]

Vehicle tactics/counter-ambush classes seem to be the latest fad in tactical training. They can certainly have value and there is certainly a need.

It is not my intent to pick on anyone's favorite instructor and it wouuld be unfair of me to levy specific criticisms without having attended their class. But, having watched some of the videos circulating the internet highlighting this type of training, I see some questionable TTP's being taught and some techniques being incorrectly applied, to the detriment of the students.

I would encourage anyone considering attending this type of training to really vet the instructor and determine where they cultivated the depth of knowledge/expertise to teach a vehicle tactics/counter-ambush class. A link to an article by Mike Pannone (Here:http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/12/gunfighter-moment-mike-pannone-36/) was recently posted in another thread that provides an excellent template for anyone considering this type of training to evaluate the course being considered.