View Full Version : Follow on observations "mini rant" ;-)
"On one end of the spectrum there's fighting with open class race guns with hair triggers.
On the other end of the spectrum there's fighting with muskets because "the M4 is a cheater gun".
At the end of the day, the mission defines what's acceptable and should be the thing that rules out the race gun but allows the M4...I just don't think we are clear enough about what the actual requirements of the missions are, and I don't think we're too good deriving explicit gear constraints from them."
Dove wrote the above lines in another thread, and I misplaced them when i first saw them, but now found them again. I think they are worth reading again.
I agree with what he is saying completely. My problem with technological advancement, is that it really needs to offer a superior performance, that still meets or exceeds our current base requirements. Often, we accept the new advancement by relinquishing an older requirement. That may be more accuracy for less reliability. Barrels, sights, even ammo, can all be affected in this way. Even entire guns. Sometimes it's even less accuracy AND less reliability, but a gain in capacity or reload speed or portability. Think certain semi auto sniper rifles. These are just a couple of examples.
The problem can become both better and worse when dealing with handguns. Better, because the guns don't matter very much compared to rifles (for professional level fighting needs - obviously for CCW or uniform/plainclothes Police work, the pistol is extremely important.) Worse because the mission is often less understood than with the long gun. This leads to upgrades that may shine on a course of fire, and may make the user feel much more capable, but actually has no real relevance to what a pistol has to accomplish in a fight.
People easily lose sight of what matters, in all endeavors. Even easier to do so when you don't have any recent relevant experience in the matter. It is my one and only real complaint with competition. Compete long enough, and you will want to be more competitive. It is a natural thing. That will lead you to making decisions about things (techniques, training, equipment) that work better on the range, and worse on the street.
A friend of mine who I also work with is a Master class shooter, and just won a nice state match. He is an excellent shooter, but is also a SWAT guy. Unlike most of the SWAT/comp shooters I know, he is able to keep real world needs separate in his head. He is in the very small minority, from what I have seen. Everyone who wants to be a better shooter should shoot competition. For most people though, if you want to "keep it real", then you need to stop shooting competition once you get what you can out of it.
Anyway, I don't think this is a rant either, just a nod to the guys who teased me about it last time.:-)
These are just my observations, based on my time around the best and worst of our professional fighters/peacekeepers and competitors. I've worked on weapons and equipment design and procurement, and have seen these issues time and time again, with my guys and with other guys. It is human nature. But we still have to fight it, and to do that, you have to recognize that there is an issue.
Thanks for the early morning wisdom.
Could you describe more specifically how your SWAT/competitor friend maintains a separate mindset for tactical vs competition. Is it mostly just equipment? I feel like one of the most basic examples of competitors forgetting tactical needs is wanting to carry a fiber optic sight on a duty gun. That particular issue has been discussed in depth and I hesitate to mention due to risk of thread drift but, to me, it is one easy example.
BJJ,
I agree about the fiber optic. Since we are talking about sights, one way to keep the range and the street separate is to understand that sights that might be optimized for the range, or a particular type of competition, are often not applicable to carry. My friend understands this, and though he plays with different sights (a little bit) on his comp guns, he maintains night sights on his duty guns.
Another way is how he trains. Splits are great, but extreme accuracy is greater. He trains to a very high accuracy standard, one that *may* lead to a slower winning path in competition, but allows for the level of precision he needs off the range. Too many people seem to care how fast they can hit a fairly large target. As an example, the A zone is ok in width, but way too long/low. More important to know how fast you can hit a realistic target, say a 5" circle (I try not to use too symmetrical a target, but the 5" circle is an easy reference).
There are other areas, and maybe I'll write more in depth about them later, but it's time for breakfast.
SLG,
Thanks. That's helpful. If you have more to say later, I think this a great topic that could use more discussion.
I like the example of your friend's focus on accuracy instead of splits. I assume he is shooting USPSA and not IDPA.
I think a positive example of using competition correctly is people shooting limited minor with their carry gun ala OrigamiAK and joshs. It forces one to be more accuracy intensive than if for example, OAK, switched from a G34 to a G35 to get more points on hits outside the A zone.
Gamers that maintain a face shooter mindset all shoot minor, to enforce a continued focus on accuracy. :)
ST911
04-10-2016, 09:31 AM
(I try not to use too symmetrical a target, but the 5" circle is an easy reference).
Please say more.
VolGrad
04-10-2016, 09:54 AM
For most people though, if you want to "keep it real", then you need to stop shooting competition once you get what you can out of it.
I see where you are going with this statement but will throw out the devil's advocate position that staying in competitive sports can keep your skills sharp due to the stress of the timer and looking like a chump in front of your shooting buddies. :cool:
I'm simply stating you might not be "getting" anything more out of competition but remaining in can still help keep you sharp .... especially if you aren't actively training.
Please say more.
I didn't make that part clear, typing too quickly.
When training on the range, I often use targets of convenience, i.e. 3x5 cards, 5x7 cards, 5", 6" and 8" paper plates. These targets are good sizes for various skill building drills, but none of them accurately replicate the vital zone of a person. Duh.
The best targets do not have defined outlines, and are somewhat asymmetrical in shape. I think this does a better job of forcing you to learn where to shoot, rather than just hit a specific size target. I guess you could say that the "convenience targets" are the crawl stage and the more realistic targets are the walk stage. FoF is the run stage (of training). Don't get me started on the flaws that plenty of FoF programs have.
LSP552
04-10-2016, 09:59 AM
Experience matters, and most competitive shooters don't point guns at people for a regular basis. I think this matters, a lot. Without experience, priorities can get confused, and it's easy to let winning move to the top of the list.
Completely agree that the mission should drive everything else, and most people probably feel this way. The problem is lots of people have trouble defining what that mission really is.
Sorry, just got back from changing my panties.
One of the things buried in that quote is the trigger issue. I don't think we have a good, parameterized definition of what a "safe" trigger is. Let's leave the droptesting part out of it and just think it terms of ND capability. Some guns claim to achieve this with a certain pull weight. Others rely on a long trigger pull. We have some standards to go off of: 5.5lbs for Glock, 4.5 for locked 1911, etc. but many of these feel as if they've been pulled out of an ass somewhere. In fact, we see federal procurements mandating a specific trigger pull weight range across multiple different trigger types with different characteristics. One might see that as evidence of good testing and constraint setting, but I'm guessing it is instead evidence of coarse-grained guesstimating based on experiences with other products. There doesn't appear to be a standard nor a test for what makes a trigger acceptable.
One possible criterion would be to integrate the pull-weight curve over the travel distance. That would give you the total energy required to pull the trigger. How that interacts with, say, a safety is even more questionable, but one option would be to add the energy required to flick the safety. Still, it's not clear that this is the right metric for comparing what a "safe" Glock is to a "safe" LEM. Maybe it's not force*distance as I've suggested. Maybe it's force*distance^2, or force^2*distance, who knows. So, what I think we really need is some sort of objective test of whether or not a trigger is ND-safe enough for duty use.
I've ranted (ho ho, see what I did there?) about this specific example not because I want to talk about that specifically, but because it illustrates the larger point which is that there are problems like this in tons of aspects of gear and firearms selection. We don't actually know what we want/need. We just pick whatever looks coolest off the shelf, try it, and decide whether or not it has a problem. In the next generation, we ask them to fix what's broken and leave what's fine alone. That's a very practical way of doing things, and I don't mean to detract from it. But, when we cross into the territory of optimizing performance and debating what personal, customized gear is or is not acceptable for the mission, we need to actually define the constraints. One option is just to say: "either it has gone through those generations of pick and choose, trial and error, fix, rinse, repeat, OR it is unacceptable". That is a wise policy for the operator that needs to work in the real, uncertain world. In fact, it is maybe the only policy one should rely on when it all hangs in the balance. You pick the most proven thing you are willing to accept. You accept the devils you know over the devils you don't. Those who do anything else are more likely to get bit bad one day.
However, that approach spares little room for innovation. It is a plan that optimizes short-term performance at the cost of long-term performance. We owe it to ourselves to actually define the mission constraints as best we can, derive gear constraints from them, and use that feedback to design new products which then get tested to shit, and then get the final test in the hands of the necessarily-cautious operator, and then go through the fix-rinse-repeat cycle.
taadski
04-10-2016, 11:17 AM
Everyone who wants to be a better shooter should shoot competition. For most people though, if you want to "keep it real", then you need to stop shooting competition once you get what you can out of it.
Good thread. The part of your post I quoted here would seem to infer that once one is "good enough", they should step away from shooting competitively. I understand a lot of the enigma that is involved in "keeping it real", but like VolGrad mentioned, part of what draws me to continued competitive shooting (aside from just being neurotic) is the inspiration and motivation it provides to keep "sharpening the tool". I'm not at all arguing that there aren't some significant pitfalls associated with gaming (whether shooting minor or not ;)) but I still feel that the benefits of said motivation waaaay outweigh not being involved at this point in my professional (LE) career.
I know there's no absolute answer, but akin to some of the past "timmy/gamer" discussions: What's good enough? What's fast enough? What's accurate enough? Serious question, bud: How would you suggest folks assess whether or not they've "gotten what they can" out of it?
t
Good thread. The part of your post I quoted here would seem to infer that once one is "good enough", they should step away from shooting competitively. I understand a lot of the enigma that is involved in "keeping it real", but like VolGrad mentioned, part of what draws me to continued competitive shooting (aside from just being neurotic) is the inspiration and motivation it provides to keep "sharpening the tool". I'm not at all arguing that there aren't some significant pitfalls associated with gaming (whether shooting minor or not ;)) but I still feel that the benefits of said motivation waaaay outweigh not being involved at this point in my professional (LE) career.
I know there's no absolute answer, but akin to some of the past "timmy/gamer" discussions: What's good enough? What's fast enough? What's accurate enough? Serious question, bud: How would you suggest folks assess whether or not they've "gotten what they can" out of it?
t
That is a good question and I don't have a solid answer.
If you really enjoy the game, then please, continue. It probably won't get you killed, but it will likely begin to dominate your thinking. Life is too short, and shooting is too much fun, to deny yourself a good venue for that.
My thought on quitting after you have gotten something out of it has more to do with people who don't necessarily want to shoot competition regularly, or at all, but who want to be better shooters. You really can't be a great shooter if you haven't shot competition. Almost any competition is fine, but obviously each kind will give you different things. Which is why I think you should shoot them all.
For me, shooting USPSA taught me things about movement and efficiency, that carry over to every aspect of my shooting.
Shooting Steel Challenge taught me about real stand and deliver speed, and also that even though the targets are kinda big, ALL shooting is accuracy based shooting.
Shooting Bullseye and PPC improved my accuracy, and made me thankful that more action oriented shooting exists:-)
I really hope to add Bianchi cup to the list.
I've shot BUG matches both formal and informal. 2 gun, 3 gun, 4 gun even(not open to the public). Clays, field sniper matches, precision run and gun, as well as Biathlon type stuff that is more PT oriented.
All of it has allowed me to see what top shooters are capable of. That alone is worth the price of admission, and taught me tons.
All of it was beneficial, and I still do some of it occasionally, as time allows. Am I at my peak for any of it right now? No, but that's because I shoot once or twice a week now, instead of 5 times a week.
If you need or want competition to drive your practice, so that you practice and stay sharp, have at it. Better than not practicing. Personally, I don't find the need, though I'd be happy to shoot competition more often than I currently do.
taadski
04-10-2016, 11:49 AM
Thanks for the down to earth answer, S. There are some real gems in that post. And I'm wit ya. ;)
El Cid
04-10-2016, 12:06 PM
Great thread! I have friends and coworkers who will creep down that path a little with vertical holsters at 3 o'clock, FO sights, etc. I do everything I can to treat matches like training. By that I mean I shoot Glocks with duty sights, factory triggers, factory controls, and factory ammo. And I do it from concealment with the holster I use on and off duty (Raven) in the same spot on my belt where it's worn daily at work.
I've had it pay off at work. One example was when I was in soft clothes and my support hand was held out to keep the door of the vehicle from slamming shut on me as I jumped out after a short chase. I don't remember drawing my gun. It was concealed under a polo and I drew one handed. I cleared the vehicle and door and noticed the gun was in my hand already. As much as I enjoy competition, I can't bring myself to go down that rabbit hole of changing my gear. I'm under no illusion that agency quals are training. They are a measurement and don't prepare us for much of what we can encounter in public.
Shooting Steel Challenge taught me about real stand and deliver speed, and also that even though the targets are kinda big, ALL shooting is accuracy based shooting.
Truth
7147
Dagga Boy
04-15-2016, 12:15 AM
I will give a giant nod to just about everything SLG posted......with one exception. You should always be shooting competitively. Always have something invested. You should be trying to beat yourself, your training partner, team mates, or the other guy you are facing in a fight....and that guy you want to not only beat, but utterly crush. I (being a terminolgy dork) have changed my wording to "sport shooting" versus competitive. Scotty Reitz calls it "play shooting". There is zero wrong with it....unless you are working toward a very serious side of the equation and the sport or play stuff begins to become the most "recent and relative" things you have stored in your brain.
Like SLG, I applaud the guys who can draw a solid divide. I use Dr. No on the is forum as an example. I really had to stop sport/play shooting as it was affecting what I was doing on the street and my priorities. The key was I replaced that time, money and energy with top tier training classes.
Hambo
04-15-2016, 07:11 AM
BJJ,
Too many people seem to care how fast they can hit a fairly large target. As an example, the A zone is ok in width, but way too long/low. More important to know how fast you can hit a realistic target, say a 5" circle (I try not to use too symmetrical a target, but the 5" circle is an easy reference).
I've been shooting Rangemaster Q targets lately but the "chest" has the same problem. I also think 3x5" head boxes are too generous, so my new standards for myself are 3" brain circle and 5" chest. Hits that break the line are a fail, not a gimme. I also printed out FAST targets on 8.5x11" paper, which reduces the targets to about 2/3 of original size, and they're a real bitch.
Bit of a tangent, but I'd like to discuss the scoring concept of shots touching the line or being within the line. I choose targets that give me what I consider to be an acceptable size for the drill or test I want to do. That means that an edge hit is no worse than a center hit. A hit is a hit. Without that allowance, it is very difficult to learn to see what you need to see. I have seen a few places lately that want students to hit within the outer lines, and not touch the outer lines. I don't think this is as useful. If you want to stay a bullet diameter off the outer line, I think it is better to reduce your target by that much and allow edge hits. It not only makes things easier to score, it allows for faster learning, as noted above.
If you go with too small a target, you will not learn to go really fast. A proper mix of targets sizes is essential to well rounded development, but the core needs to be the ability to hit a relatively small target at a pretty good speed.
On the Cooper Cup test, Gunsite specifies that all hits must fall fully within the scoring area, and shots touching the line don't count. I pointed out to management, that they were effectively discriminating against .45, in favor of 9mm, which might not be what Col. Cooper would have desired.
I'm guessing my response rant got bit by last-post-on-page syndrome. What else is new :rolleyes:
I choose targets that give me what I consider to be an acceptable size for the drill or test I want to do. That means that an edge hit is no worse than a center hit. A hit is a hit. Without that allowance, it is very difficult to learn to see what you need to see. I have seen a few places lately that want students to hit within the outer lines, and not touch the outer lines. I don't think this is as useful. If you want to stay a bullet diameter off the outer line, I think it is better to reduce your target by that much and allow edge hits.
Finally. Thank you. I'm not crazy.
I've been feeling exactly this way for a while, but the bigger issue is just standardizing. eyemahm and I agreed on a tough standard for Dot Torture because...actually, here was my quote that defined the standard "no one squared away on PF should have doubts about the score we assign". What we agreed to physically was that there be grease ring inside the white/grey of the dot; this ensures the actual hole solidly breaks the black line for 9mm. The point was, when we claimed we cleaned DT, we wouldn't want there to be a single SME that would kinda roll there eyes at us and move on. But, shooting it to "edge" standards the other day for DoTW, we were shocked how many extra points show up. The moral being, a drill loses its value as a performance metric if you aren't agreeing with everyone else on the terms and conditions.
SLG, when scoring edge shots, do you go by the "grease ring touching any part of scoring area" standard?
rob_s
04-15-2016, 08:23 AM
I assume what we're discussing here is chasing the 1% of shooters, no?
We all know that many people that carry guns for a living get ZERO training or practice outside their annual qual. As one example, I'm aware of a local PD that had a woman officer show up for her qual, draw the gun, attempt to shoot, and discover that the gun was not loaded. Turns out, she had emptied it after he last qual 6 months ago and had never re-laoded the gun, meaning she was "on the street" with an empty gun for six months!
I think we would all agree that, in those situations where the officer is otherwise getting no training or practice, they would be better off showing up to the occasional (preferably regular) IDPA or USPSA match with their duty gear, no?
Again! I think I'm going crazy. Tom, is it possible to run stats on how many of my posts end up last on a page? :p
Man, what a boringgreat episode of the Twilight Zone that would be.
babypanther
04-15-2016, 09:19 AM
I began shooting USPSA to get myself out of the comfort zone that I was in. I am trying to be a well rounded guy like some others that have been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere. I think coming from an LE shooting world of standing flat footed and shooting a course over and over, sport shooting or whatever you call it is great at showing you where you're at in reality concerning reloads, shooting on the move, draws, etc. As others have stated, it is important to keep in mind WHY you are there. Me personally, is not to win matches, but get better as an overall shooter. For me that is hard because I get competitive about it if i lose sight of the WHY. Im just trying to get better, and have fun at this point in USPSA.
Mr_White
04-15-2016, 11:25 AM
I agree with BJJ - I wouldn't want to give up Minor scoring. I don't think Major scoring would be a positive influence on my shooting.
Also agree with VolGrad - the stress of competition is very real for many people. It certainly is for me. Private informal competition against buddies, or in training classes is good and it's something, not nothing. But it also doesn't hold a candle to the intensity of formal, public competition. Same thing but with a much more powerful stress effect for me.
The practical solution to that is probably the most important aspect of shooting: on demand performance. I have to retreat into what I can reliably do with the sights and trigger. There isn't any bullshitting about what you can do in competition, which is one reason why plenty of people would rather talk about intangibles from behind a keyboard, than allow themselves to be judged in a public competition. Also because intangibles can be talked about from behind a keyboard anytime, whereas you can only go to an actual competition when one is going on and you can attend it. :) And that's not unrelated to the relationship between competition, training, and field experience...which in an important way boils down to a simple question of availability.
Experience matters, and most competitive shooters don't point guns at people for a regular basis. I think this matters, a lot. Without experience, priorities can get confused, and it's easy to let winning move to the top of the list.
Borrowed from Bill Rogers: Combat IS a competition. ;) Winning is a priority. I know, I know, we are discussing the 'how to get there' part.
I agree that experience matters, but obtaining real experience is also irrelevant to a lot of people. Those who don't have jobs that require they deal with hostile parties in ambiguous situations and make use of force decisions simply do not have the option of amassing real experience. Just the way it is. So when you are that person, you do what you can. That includes training, which absolutely should be guided by the bedrock of experience that comes from others who have BTDT, and whatever else that can be done to build skill, induce stress, and help model effective behavior. One of the most readily available and inexpensive opportunities nonprofessionals have to shoot and gunhandle under stress is competition. Training too, but that costs a lot more and often focuses on different (and very important) aspects of the puzzle.
But I do think that the best stress competition has to offer comes from 'getting in the game' and trying to win. It may be a balancing act to try to win, but not do every possible thing you could to win (not sacrificing gear priorities is a prime example.) Honestly trying to win enables a lot of the value for me though.
taadski
04-15-2016, 11:46 AM
I agree with BJJ - I wouldn't want to give up Minor scoring. I don't think Major scoring would be a positive influence on my shooting.
Also agree with VolGrad - the stress of competition is very real for many people. It certainly is for me. Private informal competition against buddies, or in training classes is good and it's something, not nothing. But it also doesn't hold a candle to the intensity of formal, public competition. Same thing but with a much more powerful stress effect for me.
The practical solution to that is probably the most important aspect of shooting: on demand performance. I have to retreat into what I can reliably do with the sights and trigger. There isn't any bullshitting about what you can do in competition, which is one reason why plenty of people would rather talk about intangibles from behind a keyboard, than allow themselves to be judged in a public competition. Also because intangibles can be talked about from behind a keyboard anytime, whereas you can only go to an actual competition when one is going on and you can attend it. :) And that's not unrelated to the relationship between competition, training, and field experience...which in an important way boils down to a simple question of availability.
Borrowed from Bill Rogers: Combat IS a competition. ;) Winning is a priority. I know, I know, we are discussing the 'how to get there' part.
I agree that experience matters, but obtaining real experience is also irrelevant to a lot of people. Those who don't have jobs that require they deal with hostile parties in ambiguous situations and make use of force decisions simply do not have the option of amassing real experience. Just the way it is. So when you are that person, you do what you can. That includes training, which absolutely should be guided by the bedrock of experience that comes from others who have BTDT, and whatever else that can be done to build skill, induce stress, and help model effective behavior. One of the most readily available and inexpensive opportunities nonprofessionals have to shoot and gunhandle under stress is competition. Training too, but that costs a lot more and often focuses on different (and very important) aspects of the puzzle.
But I do think that the best stress competition has to offer comes from 'getting in the game' and trying to win. It may be a balancing act to try to win, but not do every possible thing you could to win (not sacrificing gear priorities is a prime example.) Honestly trying to win enables a lot of the value for me though.
Hey,
You should start traveling around and training people or something. :cool:
Hey,
You should start traveling around and training people or something. :cool:
Yes please.
LSP552
04-15-2016, 08:28 PM
the stress of competition is very real for many people. It certainly is for me. Private informal competition against buddies, or in training classes is good and it's something, not nothing. But it also doesn't hold a candle to the intensity of formal, public competition. Same thing but with a much more powerful stress effect for me.
The practical solution to that is probably the most important aspect of shooting: on demand performance. I have to retreat into what I can reliably do with the sights and trigger. There isn't any bullshitting about what you can do in competition, which is one reason why plenty of people would rather talk about intangibles from behind a keyboard, than allow themselves to be judged in a public competition. Also because intangibles can be talked about from behind a keyboard anytime, whereas you can only go to an actual competition when one is going on and you can attend it. :) And that's not unrelated to the relationship between competition, training, and field experience...which in an important way boils down to a simple question of availability.
Borrowed from Bill Rogers: Combat IS a competition. ;) Winning is a priority. I know, I know, we are discussing the 'how to get there' part.
I agree that experience matters, but obtaining real experience is also irrelevant to a lot of people. Those who don't have jobs that require they deal with hostile parties in ambiguous situations and make use of force decisions simply do not have the option of amassing real experience. Just the way it is. So when you are that person, you do what you can. That includes training, which absolutely should be guided by the bedrock of experience that comes from others who have BTDT, and whatever else that can be done to build skill, induce stress, and help model effective behavior. One of the most readily available and inexpensive opportunities nonprofessionals have to shoot and gunhandle under stress is competition. Training too, but that costs a lot more and often focuses on different (and very important) aspects of the puzzle.
I've felt more stress shooting NRA Regional PPC matches than shooting for my life. Competition can be a great thing, it just shouldn't be the only thing for those serious about using a gun for self defense. Without a doubt, I'd take shooting instruction from people I wouldn't take a tactics class from. Experience comes in many forms, and valid training is certainly a factor. We can all gain experience from those who have experiences above and beyond our own.
The danger for people just staring on this journey is they often don't know what they don't know. IMO, instructors that stray from their lane don't help the process.
eyemahm
04-15-2016, 08:55 PM
I'm guessing my response rant got bit by last-post-on-page syndrome. What else is new :rolleyes:
Finally. Thank you. I'm not crazy.
I've been feeling exactly this way for a while, but the bigger issue is just standardizing. eyemahm and I agreed on a tough standard for Dot Torture because...actually, here was my quote that defined the standard "no one squared away on PF should have doubts about the score we assign". What we agreed to physically was that there be grease ring inside the white/grey of the dot; this ensures the actual hole solidly breaks the black line for 9mm. The point was, when we claimed we cleaned DT, we wouldn't want there to be a single SME that would kinda roll there eyes at us and move on. But, shooting it to "edge" standards the other day for DoTW, we were shocked how many extra points show up. The moral being, a drill loses its value as a performance metric if you aren't agreeing with everyone else on the terms and conditions.
SLG, when scoring edge shots, do you go by the "grease ring touching any part of scoring area" standard?
Glad we are having this discussion and am curious to hear SLG's two cents.
When it comes to DT sometimes I think we should score it two ways, easy (grease ring touching any part of circle) and hard (no grease ring outside circle) to add greater granularity to the distance based difficulty level of the drill.
Now I'm going to go post my sad looking (easy) DT of 40.
Sorry, missed this before. I use the outer edge of the grease ring. If the grease is touching, its good.
Really, all that matters is consistency, but I find that is the easiest way to be consistent. If the bullet doesn't leave a grease ring, then I just use the outer edge of the hole.
Mike seeklander has some really good thoughts on this. I don't know them word for word but he's a huge supporter of the "everyone should shoot competitively" camp. He says it will drive you to shoot more and not only shoot more but also make you compete. As a new shooter I've found that to be very true.
I don't want to ever become a gamer and I plan on shooting in production. I shoot a Glock and carry a Glock.
Good info in this thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mike seeklander has some really good thoughts on this. I don't know them word for word but he's a huge supporter of the "everyone should shoot competitively" camp. He says it will drive you to shoot more and not only shoot more but also make you compete. As a new shooter I've found that to be very true.
I don't want to ever become a gamer and I plan on shooting in production. I shoot a Glock and carry a Glock.
Good info in this thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is your definition of a gamer?
What is your definition of a gamer?
Three letters, but I won't make you guess.
GJM.
Frank Proctor talks about competition and how it relates to real world skills. Love it or hate. Just thought it was relevant and he's plenty qualified to talk about both sides, IMHO.
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/03/18/frank-proctor-guns-gear-training-competitive-shooting/
He just did a live interview discussing competition and how it affected his combat/tactical skills. Skip to 7:30 to hear the good stuff. http://youtu.be/W-IuuURGl0M
What is your definition of a gamer?
Someone who spends all their training time strictly for competition and none on the defensive side of handguns. Maybe some of those guys don't carry outside of matches but the first match I went to the guy encouraged us to shoot with what we carry. If I carry a lcp it doesn't do much good to practice shooting all the time with a $5000 open gun. I carry a g19 mostly so I got a g34 for competition. I feel by doing that I can gain shooting and gun handling skills that can translate to the real world. Competitive shooting is very fun and addicting so I hope I don't blur the lines between the game and real life applications.
Someone who spends all their training time strictly for competition and none on the defensive side of handguns. Maybe some of those guys don't carry outside of matches but the first match I went to the guy encouraged us to shoot with what we carry. If I carry a lcp it doesn't do much good to practice shooting all the time with a $5000 open gun. I carry a g19 mostly so I got a g34 for competition. I feel by doing that I can gain shooting and gun handling skills that can translate to the real world. Competitive shooting is very fun and addicting so I hope I don't blur the lines between the game and real life applications.
Most of my USPSA friends fall short on carrying an appropriate gun, and practicing with it.
Most of my friends that carry a gun defensively, but do not compete, fall short on technical shooting ability.
Seems like there is an obvious solution for both. That is all for now as I am on the way to a match, with my Glock 19.
Clobbersaurus
04-16-2016, 09:24 AM
Three letters, but I won't make you guess.
GJM.
I laughed out loud at that...
Mr_White
04-16-2016, 09:37 AM
Someone who spends all their training time strictly for competition and none on the defensive side of handguns. Maybe some of those guys don't carry outside of matches but the first match I went to the guy encouraged us to shoot with what we carry. If I carry a lcp it doesn't do much good to practice shooting all the time with a $5000 open gun. I carry a g19 mostly so I got a g34 for competition. I feel by doing that I can gain shooting and gun handling skills that can translate to the real world. Competitive shooting is very fun and addicting so I hope I don't blur the lines between the game and real life applications.
Given the priorities you express, why not just shoot the G19 in competition too? Or carry the G34?
I've carried a gun for work for 24 years. Trained with a lot of the best folks out there over the years, but never got into competition. Over the last two years I was told by both Mike Pannone and Frank Proctor at classes that I should shoot competition. That was a clue. Finally started last summer. Shot my duty gun (Sig P226 .40) with duty ammo (RA40T) out of an ALS holster. I'm now doing a little experiment to see how much performance benefit I get from a couple of changes....now shooting a 9mm P226 with Warren/Sevigny Fiber Optic front. So far (2 matches, one tomorrow) I definitely see the benefit the sight gives for competition...especially the narrow front. Much easier to hit 6" plates from 18 yards quickly. Ideally I would be doing more shooting in training, but that is not possible at my agency. 190 rounds a year....that's it. And that's double what we were doing last year. At least I'm getting some trigger time, under pressure on targets of varying degrees of difficulty. And my shooting is without doubt improving. Now if I could just stop making dumb procedural errors.....
Given the priorities you express, why not just shoot the G19 in competition too? Or carry the G34?
Competition creates a slight problem for me because I carry in the appendix position. My local range hosts matches that allow me to carry appendix so I use my g19 for that. I suppose in a way I am gaming it by using the 34.
You wouldn't be able to shoot Production from the appendix position. You'd have to go Limited for that. I know that I am "gaming" with my little experiment a bit. But one of our guys I regularly shoot with has given up entirely on shooting the department gun....he shoots a Glock 34 with TTI sights and a Vogel Dynamics trigger in Production, out of a BOSS holster. He's way faster than me (gun aside). He's also assigned to our Range and shoots every day. Carries a G19 off duty, and basically never touches the department issued Sig. I will be the first to admit that shooting a stock .40 Sig (with trijicon night sights) in USPSA Production is not 'competitive'.....but that really isn't the contest I'm most concerned about. I still work patrol. My biggest concern is getting better with what I have to carry....not what I wish I could carry. I made the decision to shoot USPSA rather than IDPA because I was looking for more difficult shooting problems, and frankly more trigger time. This is about the pure mechanics of shooting for me....not really the stress of competition. I also didn't want to be putting myself in the position of having my tactical decision making questioned by a guy who has never gone through a door for real before. Most of our local folks are pretty good (looking at you, Hopeton :cool:), but some IDPA folks can take themselves a little too seriously. I will probably try it at some point, and I actually recommended IDPA to a friend who just got into the world of defensive shooting. I told him it would be a decent way to maintain his skills between training classes, and would challenge him. Both games have value. I suppose it depends on your individual needs and circumstances.
Mr_White
04-16-2016, 01:52 PM
You wouldn't be able to shoot Production from the appendix position. You'd have to go Limited for that. I know that I am "gaming" with my little experiment a bit. But one of our guys I regularly shoot with has given up entirely on shooting the department gun....he shoots a Glock 34 with TTI sights and a Vogel Dynamics trigger in Production, out of a BOSS holster. He's way faster than me (gun aside). He's also assigned to our Range and shoots every day. Carries a G19 off duty, and basically never touches the department issued Sig. I will be the first to admit that shooting a stock .40 Sig (with trijicon night sights) in USPSA Production is not 'competitive'.....but that really isn't the contest I'm most concerned about. I still work patrol. My biggest concern is getting better with what I have to carry....not what I wish I could carry. I made the decision to shoot USPSA rather than IDPA because I was looking for more difficult shooting problems, and frankly more trigger time. This is about the pure mechanics of shooting for me....not really the stress of competition. I also didn't want to be putting myself in the position of having my tactical decision making questioned by a guy who has never gone through a door for real before. Most of our local folks are pretty good (looking at you, Hopeton :cool:), but some IDPA folks can take themselves a little too seriously. I will probably try it at some point, and I actually recommended IDPA to a friend who just got into the world of defensive shooting. I told him it would be a decent way to maintain his skills between training classes, and would challenge him. Both games have value. I suppose it depends on your individual needs and circumstances.
Competition creates a slight problem for me because I carry in the appendix position. My local range hosts matches that allow me to carry appendix so I use my g19 for that. I suppose in a way I am gaming it by using the 34.
Not trying to harsh on you guys at all. There is plenty of room for a variety of priorities and approaches in reconciling duty/carry and competition. Or at an extreme, bending competition to your defensive will. :)
I felt like I was reading some defensive priorities in your posts is all. firefighterguy, what kind of competition are you shooting?
Not trying to harsh on you guys at all. There is plenty of room for a variety of priorities and approaches in reconciling duty/carry and competition. Or at an extreme, bending competition to your defensive will. :)
I felt like I was reading some defensive priorities in your posts is all. firefighterguy, what kind of competition are you shooting?
So far I've just shot at some "concealed carry" matches at my local range that uses uspsa rules and idpa scoring. I would like to get into uspsa and idpa as well.
Kimura
04-16-2016, 03:32 PM
My interpretation of the OP is understand your goal and balance the whats and hows based on the goal. I agree in theory, but it doesn't always work that way in real life. How many people go to fight school where one can actually fight and get experience managing fear and injury all while someone is trying to end the activity for you. The answer is not many. Is it a necessary component to self defense? I think so but that still doesn't make me right for everyone. The one thing I realized long ago is different people participate in different ways and on different levels; and that's ok. Each person bases his choices on personal priorities. I have a friend whose down time priority is family. He still shoots pistol occasionally and trap shoots with his kids. He participates on a level and in a way that he's comfortable with. So if putting on a gaming rig and shooting Glock 34 with a trigger job and FO sights instead of your carry Glock 19 is the only thing that motivates you to practice; have at it. It beats the nothing that it replaces.
Taadski made M in Production shooting a 226 9mm. If you loaded minor PF .40 ammo for your 226, you could be very competitive in Production.
That makes me smile :D. I've got the 9mm 226 now, with the nice Warren/Sevigny sights. It's all about priorities, right? And frankly what life gives you time for. I'm enjoying the heck out of USPSA, and it is making me a better shooter at the same time. Taadski....according to all the people I shoot with, your accomplishment is just not possible!:rolleyes: We all know, ultimately it's the arrow, not the indian. Mr. White is proof of what a dedicated shooter can accomplish, regardless of carry position, gun, etc. Apparently Taadski too! Nice.
When the time comes where I am done with the blue suit and responding to other peoples troubles, I will be enjoying shooting more for the pure joy of it. Maybe I'll go full-on 'gamer' and buy a CZ! Or, just keep shooting my Sig 9mm and keep getting better. Right now, my priorities in shooting are focused on the potential 2 legged predator that needs shooting. There is a whole lot more to that equation than the mechanics of shooting, as most here know. My long winded point is....I agree with pretty much everyone here. Shoot what you want for the reasons you want, that make sense for your circumstances. I only bag on my shooting buddy because 'GAMER'!
Hey,
You should start traveling around and training people or something. :cool:
Hell yes.
Given the priorities you express, why not just shoot the G19 in competition too? Or carry the G34?
So, I went looking at the USPSA web site and deduced my carry gun (PPS M2 in a JMCK IWB) is not allowed. Did I read that right? It's too small? So I looked at the IDPA rulebook, and based on that guessed I would be competing in BUG?
I'm kind of taking a break from shooting for the summer, but planning to be more active in competition this fall. The whole 'compete with what you carry' makes sense for me. I'm just starting, so I'm not married to either USPSA or IDPA. Be great if someone could quickly clarify where I can go shoot with what I have normally.
Hell yes.
So, I went looking at the USPSA web site and deduced my carry gun (PPS M2 in a JMCK IWB) is not allowed. Did I read that right? It's too small? So I looked at the IDPA rulebook, and based on that guessed I would be competing in BUG?
I'm kind of taking a break from shooting for the summer, but planning to be more active in competition this fall. The whole 'compete with what you carry' makes sense for me. I'm just starting, so I'm not married to either USPSA or IDPA. Be great if someone could quickly clarify where I can go shoot with what I have normally.
Rich, your PPS would be welcome, although not competitive, in USPSA production class. Your HK VP9 would be a swell gun for Production.
GJM - Ok, cool. Yeah, I've shot the VP9 in one steel match and one USPSA match. It's just after having a hard think about things, I'm like, if you are going to 'carry your damn gun' as Mr. Givens says, using the same gun for competition to keep you sharp suddenly makes a lot of sense.
At least for me, just starting out. For more expert shooters (most of you here), ya'll can more adroitly switch back and forth, and still be confident with your CCW. Me, not so much.
USPSA is a 8, 10 or more round world. Whatever training benefit of shooting your PPS will likely be offset by needing 6-8 magazines to efficiently complete most field courses, since targets are often arrayed so as to require eight rounds between shooting positions.
I admire fidelity to one platform, but at the end of the day while gaming, you are primarily learning to press the trigger while steering the sights, under time pressure.
GJM - Ok, cool. Yeah, I've shot the VP9 in one steel match and one USPSA match. It's just after having a hard think about things, I'm like, if you are going to 'carry your damn gun' as Mr. Givens says, using the same gun for competition to keep you sharp suddenly makes a lot of sense.
At least for me, just starting out. For more expert shooters (most of you here), ya'll can more adroitly switch back and forth, and still be confident with your CCW. Me, not so much.
Unless you are trying to be competitive, there is no downside if you shoot your pps in USPSA or IDPA. I think you'll get a lot out of it.
GJM - Ok, cool. Yeah, I've shot the VP9 in one steel match and one USPSA match. It's just after having a hard think about things, I'm like, if you are going to 'carry your damn gun' as Mr. Givens says, using the same gun for competition to keep you sharp suddenly makes a lot of sense.
At least for me, just starting out. For more expert shooters (most of you here), ya'll can more adroitly switch back and forth, and still be confident with your CCW. Me, not so much.
Carrying and competing with similar guns, like a PPS M2 and a VP9 or a Glock 19 and 34 has carry over benefits. Is it exactly like being a true "martial artist"? No, but as long as you are honest about the capability gap, it is still more beneficial than training and competing with a 2lb trigger 2011 and carrying a J frame revolver you never shoot.
Unless you are trying to be competitive, there is no downside if you shoot your pps in USPSA or IDPA. I think you'll get a lot out of it.
Thank you sir. No, not so much competitive, as staying alive.
I wasn't sure if I turned up with my little gun I'd be allowed to shoot a USPSA match from a concealed IWB holster. Since I'm likely to just shoot at my local club, maybe the RO will cut me some slack if I'm safe, and explain why I am there with my EDC?
I will look into getting a bunch of 8 round magazines for it at the end of the summer, and some decent mag carriers. The 8 rounders are like hens teeth at the moment. Hopefully Fort Smith will start to get them from the mothership in a couple months...
I'll have to ask Tony at JMCK if he can do a couple double mag pouches for a PPS M2...
Mr_White
04-21-2016, 04:46 PM
I wasn't sure if I turned up with my little gun I'd be allowed to shoot a USPSA match from a concealed IWB holster. Since I'm likely to just shoot at my local club, maybe the RO will cut me some slack if I'm safe, and explain why I am there with my EDC?
No explanation should be required. If the holster is 'otherwise safe' (I'd define that as: covers trigger guard, stays open when you take the gun out, attaches securely to the belt, retains gun while moving around), concealed strong side IWB is totally legal in all Divisions of USPSA. It's possible you'll run into some club or RO who is confused about that, but then USPSA HQ needs to hear about it and that club should get straightened right out. One thing you do need to watch out for with a strong side IWB, assuming you wear it just behind the hip - breaking the 180 when you draw.
^^^ Thanks. I may also see if there is a good OWB 0 cant holster out in the market place for the PPS M2 yet. I'm guessing that by August someone will have one.
^^^ Thanks. I may also see if there is a good OWB 0 cant holster out in the market place for the PPS M2 yet. I'm guessing that by August someone will have one.
Tony at JM can do that, as he is making PPS holsters.
Tony Mayer
04-21-2016, 06:48 PM
^^^ Thanks. I may also see if there is a good OWB 0 cant holster out in the market place for the PPS M2 yet. I'm guessing that by August someone will have one.
Rich, I can make them for the PPS and PPS M2.
I will look into getting a bunch of 8 round magazines for it at the end of the summer, and some decent mag carriers. The 8 rounders are like hens teeth at the moment. Hopefully Fort Smith will start to get them from the mothership in a couple months...
On your way back to FL from the west coast you can literally "camp" on Walther's door in Fort Smith until they release the 8 rounder's ;)
Rich, I can make them for the PPS and PPS M2.
Thanks Tony. I'll check in in August when we are back in FL.
PS Holster working out great. Thanks again. :)
On your way back to FL from the west coast you can literally "camp" on Walther's door in Fort Smith until they release the 8 rounder's ;)
Ha! Yeah, and if that fails, I'll go up after Tac Con '17 is over in Little Rock. :cool:
GJM - Ok, cool. Yeah, I've shot the VP9 in one steel match and one USPSA match. It's just after having a hard think about things, I'm like, if you are going to 'carry your damn gun' as Mr. Givens says, using the same gun for competition to keep you sharp suddenly makes a lot of sense.
At least for me, just starting out. For more expert shooters (most of you here), ya'll can more adroitly switch back and forth, and still be confident with your CCW. Me, not so much.
Shooting 'a' gun a lot , even if its not your carry gun, is always better than shooting a whole lot less only with your carry gun IMHO
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.