Pistol drills vs Competition

[Packy]

As a newbie, i should start somewhere.
I would like to know which is more beneficial to a pistol shooter: practicing pistol drills or competing in IPSC/IDPA?
Which will give you the edge to be a better pistolero?

Already attended pistol classes to learn formally the fundamentals of which the trainer uses pistol drills, of which this curious question emerged.

[167]

Generally speaking drills are for learning, competition is for testing. The two compliment each other. The greatest benefit will come from doing both.

[Al T.]

Agree with 167. It's (IMHO) a matter of inclusion not exclusion or simpler put, do both.

I got into the training class game late in life. Again, IMHO, the best use of resources is to get formal training. The big advantage is that hands on coaching can change or correct techniques that you just can't correct yourself. I wasted a lot of time and money playing on the range over the years.

[markp]

As a newbie, i should start somewhere.
I would like to know which is more beneficial to a pistol shooter: practicing pistol drills or competing in IPSC/IDPA?
Which will give you the edge to be a better pistolero?

Pistolero = Gunman.

Drills. Competing in USPSA/IDPA will make you better at those sports.

[gringop]

In my case, the down side to shooting only competitions is that you are devoting 3-4 hours to shooting 5 stages at around 20 seconds or less a stage. That's a hundred seconds of shooting in 4 hours (5 if you count drive time).

The up side is that I get much more complex stages (shoot on the move, swingers, ports, etc.) at competition than I am able to setup in practice. And there's the shooting under pressure aspect.

If I had to choose between the two, I know that I see much greater improvement practicing on my own with a well designed set of drills and tests where I can shoot 300 rounds in 2 hours instead of 100 rounds in 5 hours.

As others have said, do both.

Gringop

[HeadHunter]

In my latest Concealed Carry Skills class, I mentioned the concept of Practicing in the Resource-Constrained Environment (http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/articles/tactics-defensive-issues/practicing-in-the-resource-constrained-environment/). One of the students asked me whether it was better to expend his monthly allocation of 100 rounds shooting IDPA or doing drills. My response to split it between the two. A typical indoor IDPA match in Atlanta is less than 50 rounds. That leaves a box of 50 for practice drills.

IDPA isn't training, it's testing, as has already been noted here. An aspect that's different from doing drills is that it is someone else's scenario. When a criminal attacks, he's setting up the scenario, not the potential victim. When drilling, we set up the scenario for ourselves; that's really different from having to shoot someone else's scenario, even when we know what the other person's scenario is in advance.

[secondstoryguy]

I think it's nice to shoot an IDPA/USPSA/IPSC match to get out of your comfort zone and shoot different kinds of targets. I've also like that the competitive spirit of these disciplines imparts stress that you don't usually get in training. I've gone to about a 4 to 1 ratio of training to comps so for about every 4 practice sessions I do about 1 match. I've been shooting IDPA matches but I think I'm gonna switch to IPSC/USPSA. I've found is that my speed/accuracy usually isn't the problem in IDPA. My problem is remembering all the stuff I have to do during a stage. Some of the IDPA matches are just ridiculously full of BS and it seems like the guys who win are the one who can follow instructions the best and not get procedurals and not necessarily the best shooters.

[Al T.]

One thing helps with the competition aspect. If you don't like a stage, don't shoot it. Don't be all confrontational about it, just keep your score sheet. I had no issues skipping a stage if I couldn't detect the value to myself.

;)

[rsa-otc]

The way I look at IDPA is this: it makes me think and use my consious mind for something other than draw, sight, press, sight, press, reload. The actual shooting skills I develope doing drills and practicing on the local range. In IDPA what I'm doing is letting my subconsious handle the gun manipulations part and my consious mind is working to solve the problem (be it thinking or remembering). This in it's self is a skill we will need during a street confrontation and normally not something developed on the practice range.

[abu fitna]

I think it's nice to shoot an IDPA/USPSA/IPSC match to get out of your comfort zone and shoot different kinds of targets. I've also like that the competitive spirit of these disciplines imparts stress that you don't usually get in training. I've gone to about a 4 to 1 ratio of training to comps so for about every 4 practice sessions I do about 1 match. I've been shooting IDPA matches but I think I'm gonna switch to IPSC/USPSA. I've found is that my speed/accuracy usually isn't the problem in IDPA. My problem is remembering all the stuff I have to do during a stage. Some of the IDPA matches are just ridiculously full of BS and it seems like the guys who win are the one who can follow instructions the best and not get procedurals and not necessarily the best shooters.

There is definitely something to these comments.

There seem to be two schools of stage design. The first is intended to replicate the actions of a specific case study, be it actual or notional. The steps a shooter should "optimally" take are therefore a defined as a process. When done right, this can produce a useful training outcome for the individual, in terms of testing oneself against the "school solution" or the lessons of real events to see how one would fare - and of course, hopefully identifying correctives to make one a better and more judicious armed professional. The failures of such designs occur when the procedural elements exceed the limits of one's memory under stress, and when a dictated process interferes with the kind of active thinking and tactical problem solving that one must cultivate for employment in the unstructured problems presented in real world gunfights. This can charitably be a function of designers who have overlooked the purposes of design, or less so in the realm of the gamer and the would be "ninja"; as well as those who select for wins based on memory games rather than tactical thinking.

The second type of stage are those that design around a problem type, and leave open the solution set. Such design encourages the competition to become both a vehicle for individual testing (of adaptive thinking and execution under stress), but also a vehicle for experimentation (as different folks explore different solutions in search of optimization for better outcomes). This is a kind of design that IDPA has unfortunately not done enough to encourage, or rather has active discouraged (with varying reload rules, "tactical order", etc.) This is one of the reasons I have been hopeful that the KSTG discussions may produce a more useful strain of thinking in such design; and perhaps even influence the IDPA tiger teams. But this is indeed the hard part; and to many folks less "fun" than arguing over equipment.

[ToddG]

I'll buck the trend, I guess.

Until you have an adequate grasp of shooting fundamentals, competition will be an inefficient use of resources at best and form bad habits at worst.

I think competition is great and definitely has a place in developing a solid shooter. But that place is not at the beginning. There is no point testing your skillset under stress when your skillset is essentially empty.

[Jay Cunningham]

Holy crap - I agree with Todd!

:eek:

[rsa-otc]

I agree with Todd as well. I by no means want to encourage or suggest that anyone start any form of competition until they have developed a solid basic skill set.

If my previous post led anyone to believe otherwise, I apologize for my poor written English skills. :(

[Marty Hayes]

From my experience as both a trainer for over 20 years, and a competitor for over 30, one can certainly get to point B, (very skilled) from point A (unskilled) by practice and competition. At the rate one would likely practice and compete, the journey would probably take 5-10 years.

Or, that same unskilled person can get to point B by dedicating a year to taking 80-120 hours of skill building training, from excellent, well known instructors. The savings in time and ammo should more than pay for the cost of instruction.

[beltjones]

Here's how I look at it:

First, competition is fun. That's reason enough to do almost anything. And if you're not having fun with your shooting I dare say you're not motivated to practice as much as you could be. More on the effect of motivation later.

Second, competition is a great test of how good you really are. You know how really good shooters who can shoot sub 4 second FAST drills at their home range tend to blow up when they're in a real class? It's because when you set up drills on your own you tend to fool yourself as to how good you really are. "Oh that run didn't count." "Oops, missed my draw, better try again." "On the 20th attempt I'm finally shooting like myself!" At a competition you get one attempt to get it right - on a shooting test that someone else (usually) set up. If you miss, if you aren't consistent, if you have a bad run - it's because that's how good (or bad) you really are - and everyone sees it.

Third, how many people who just shoot drills ever burn out? Not many. But competition makes people burn out all the time. Why is that a good thing? It's a good thing because it means you're really pushing yourself. If you can avoid the burn out, competition will push you to improve at a rate practically impossible for someone who just shoots for training when they feel like it, even if they run some good drills when they do so. In competition, if you don't have good fundamentals you better be ok with losing (and few are). If you have holes in your technique you better fix them or you're going to be exposed. That drive to win will light a fire that brings with it the risk of burn out, but it also brings the passion that needed to achieve greatness.

[orionz06]

Use competition to evaluate your skills against others, tests/standards to evaluate them solo, and drills to address weaknesses found in both. Tests/standards provide a more concise way to determine weaknesses, competition does not.

[Packy]

I'll buck the trend, I guess.

Until you have an adequate grasp of shooting fundamentals, competition will be an inefficient use of resources at best and form bad habits at worst.

I think competition is great and definitely has a place in developing a solid shooter. But that place is not at the beginning. There is no point testing your skillset under stress when your skillset is essentially empty.

Holy crap indeed!
Thanks sir.

[NickA]

Having spent the last year or so using competition as most of my "practice", I'll second the advice to get some training and concentrate on drills and tests at first. I did take two excellent classes last year (from Todd and Tom Givens), but didn't put in the time to really ingrain what I was taught. This year I hope to correct that by doing a lot more dry fire and live drills, making the fundamentals more consistent.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Mr_White]

First, competition is fun. That's reason enough to do almost anything. And if you're not having fun with your shooting I dare say you're not motivated to practice as much as you could be. More on the effect of motivation later.

Second, competition is a great test of how good you really are. You know how really good shooters who can shoot sub 4 second FAST drills at their home range tend to blow up when they're in a real class? It's because when you set up drills on your own you tend to fool yourself as to how good you really are. "Oh that run didn't count." "Oops, missed my draw, better try again." "On the 20th attempt I'm finally shooting like myself!" At a competition you get one attempt to get it right - on a shooting test that someone else (usually) set up. If you miss, if you aren't consistent, if you have a bad run - it's because that's how good (or bad) you really are - and everyone sees it.

...

That drive to win will light a fire that brings with it the risk of burn out, but it also brings the passion that needed to achieve greatness.

Your first two reasons are why I am looking to get into more competition shooting this year.

I see shades of myself in the second part of your post, especially in the past, and I don’t like it so I am working to change it. Participation on this site and public reporting of shooting drills is part of that process for me.

Your last sentence is very, very true for me as well. Nothing motivates me to want to do better more than objectively measuring my performance and getting a score or rank or grade or something.

[Bob Hostetter]

Just my opinion ...

Regular competition, if approached correctly, will accelerate the learning of the mechanic's and application of said mechanics quicker then just about any other method. It is unlikely to teach proper tactics or self defense techniques but then it was never really been intended to do so. I must take exception with the above statement that 2-3 week of classes a year will provide the same amount of exposure and skill developement as a years worth of competition (most new guys locally are shooting several matches a month year around), assuming the individuals commitment to practice being equal regardless of which route taken. I do agree with the statement that if you are going to attend training classes you should spend the time to ensure you find an 'excellent' instructor but how famous he/she is has nothing to do with nothing. I have paid for the pleasure of attending several classes over the years taught by "well known" instructors that were a waste of time and money.

Competition is an excellent way to test your skills under pressure, highlight your weaknesses, discover alternative techniques and is an excellent method to develope your skills especially when supplemented with targeted training from quality intructors and regular practice.

[jetfire]

I'll buck the trend, I guess.

Until you have an adequate grasp of shooting fundamentals, competition will be an inefficient use of resources at best and form bad habits at worst.

I think competition is great and definitely has a place in developing a solid shooter. But that place is not at the beginning. There is no point testing your skillset under stress when your skillset is essentially empty.

I have to back Todd up on this; I didn't start shooting IDPA until after I'd had some (but not much) pistol instruction, and my first full year of IDPA was mostly spent creating bad habits that would later have to be beaten out of me by good instructors.

[GOP]

Honestly, my opinion of competition vs drills is that pistol drills are for developing skill, competition is for showcasing those skills under pressure.

At my first local action competition on Monday (IDPA-like match ran by IDPA organizers), I came in 5th and beat a lot of regular competitors because my practice regimen is very consistent, I run great drills found on this site, I study shooting, and I have had formal instruction from some very high level instructors. I'm not tooting my own horn, I got blown out of the water by the top 4 (who were the match organizers; 1 pro shooter, 1 pistol instructor/master, and 2 high level expert IDPA shooters). I think local matches are excellent for putting yourself under someone else's course, getting in shooting that is hard to do unless you have your own range (ie: shooting on the move, poppers, etc), and putting yourself under pressure. I came away with some excellent ideas to work on in training so that I can do better in my next match. I'm not sure I see a huge benefit to competing constantly, as I definitely gain more skill development from my practice sessions, at least at my mediocre level.

On a side-note, I think everyone here is blessed with an amazing community of advanced shooters. Before my first match, I was thinking that the best I'd do is about 15/20. I thought that because that is about where I compare to a lot of individuals on this site. When I got to the match (which is pretty well regarded locally), I realized that most shooters there didn't hold a candle to what most everyone on this site can do. Point being that we should all be thankful that we have such excellent opinions to draw from here.

[beltjones]

... I definitely gain more skill development from my practice sessions, at least at my mediocre level.

Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone would ever gain skills from competition. I know a lot of people who are lifetime C level shooters who don't practice. There may be a causality there somewhere...


On a side-note, I think everyone here is blessed with an amazing community of advanced shooters. Before my first match, I was thinking that the best I'd do is about 15/20. I thought that because that is about where I compare to a lot of individuals on this site. When I got to the match (which is pretty well regarded locally), I realized that most shooters there didn't hold a candle to what most everyone on this site can do. Point being that we should all be thankful that we have such excellent opinions to draw from here.

I totally agree. The good shooters on this site would be good shooters no matter who you stacked them up against. But in terms of the people at the bottom of a local match, who wants to measure themselves against the folks who don't practice and who think that they are going to "tactical training" when they shoot IDPA (where they spend most of their time discussing how a real gunfight would go...)? The beauty of competition is that you can target those few people who beat you and measure your progress as you pick each one of them off. Once you start winning local matches outright you can set your sights higher and try to be the big fish in bigger and bigger ponds. That's when you'll find yourself really pushing to develop better skills and more refined technique like you never thought possible.

[markp]

As a newbie, i should start somewhere.
I would like to know which is more beneficial to a pistol shooter: practicing pistol drills or competing in IPSC/IDPA?
Which will give you the edge to be a better pistolero?

Already attended pistol classes to learn formally the fundamentals of which the trainer uses pistol drills, of which this curious question emerged.

I guess I should have asked in my earlier reply - what are your goals?
To be a competent defensive shooter (as in maybe having to shoot others) or a recreational gun owner?

[Packy]

I guess I should have asked in my earlier reply - what are your goals?
To be a competent defensive shooter (as in maybe having to shoot others) or a recreational gun owner?

Both..

as a gun owner, i must learn how to use my pistol responsible and effectively.
Some of my friends attend local/club matches to learn and enjoy their pistols.
But ever since i found pistol-training and pistol forum, i began to weight the drills vs competition thing.

[Al T.]

One of my best friends is a long time Grand Master. He runs drills for practice and wins matches on the weekends. The two are not exclusive.

One key is to have a plan, execute the plan and evaluate your plan and progress.

[beltjones]

To come at it from a different angle:

Shooting matches exclusively will probably not make you a very good shooter.

Shooting drills exclusively will make you a better shooter, but your practice will likely be very narrowly focused.

Doing both will create a synergistic effect where the total is greater than the sum of its parts.

Matches won't make you a better shooter, but they will show you holes in your technique. If you can't hit a moving target, can't shoot one handed, etc, you will never get better at those things from just shooting matches, but you will get better from drilling. On the other hand, if you only shoot drills you probably won't discover the holes in your technique because most people tend to practice only those things that they're already good at.

[jetfire]

synergistic

558

I hate that word so much.

[beltjones]

558

I hate that word so much.

It's a real word that is used correctly in my post, and it applies in this situation. Sorry if you hate parts of the English language.

[jetfire]

I'm not saying you used it incorrectly, I'm saying that it's a stupid word that has been so brutally overused that it has becoming utterly meaningless. When I have to sit through a presentation where a dude says some variant of "synergy" 15 times (one more and he would have covered the spread) and used the phrase "synergistic team energy" without a hint of irony it's hard for me to not believe that its use should be punishable by whipping.

Also on the list: people who say "make an impact" because they don't that effect is (usually) a noun and affect is (usually) a verb.

Oh, and in the context of the shooting sports: "dynamic" and "operator" are also dead. In fact, the following sentence is the worst thing I've ever written: "The synergistic dynamic operations had an impact on the operator's lives."

But no, your post was totally correct, but god that word is like nails through a pain of glass over my spinal column.

[EmanP]

From my experience as both a trainer for over 20 years, and a competitor for over 30, one can certainly get to point B, (very skilled) from point A (unskilled) by practice and competition. At the rate one would likely practice and compete, the journey would probably take 5-10 years.


Not to burst your bubble there Marty, but I was just starting to learn to shoot when I went to your school and took lot's and lot's of classes there. I also heard you say lot's and lot's of times how shooting compitition was bad for you and how you shouldn't do it and as a result didn't for a long time. I also remember you saying that you hadn't competed in a long time while taking those classes and it was only at the end of last year when you started up again. 30 years competing would not be including the last 9 years since I took my first class from you back in May of '02 and have been competing for the last 6 or 7 years. 30 years not including the last decade would be quite a long time. :o

I can agree with all camps but here is what it will teach you through repatition - handling. That goes a long way by itself.

The biggest issue I see with new shooters starting matches is that they want to go fast way too soon. As a result they pull the trigger much faster than they can hit and start moving faster than they can follow the action and do dumb things with the muzzle. I took a lot of training classes and shot groups for a long time before I started and was well ahead of the curve first time out. Classified Expert in IDPA and high B in USPSA right away.

[Packy]

Is there generally a useful pistol drill that is mostly used on competitions?
A dot drill comes to mind.

[markp]

If you are looking at IDPA/USPSA; any drill that includes a reload would be benificial in my opinion.

[beltjones]

Is there generally a useful pistol drill that is mostly used on competitions?
A dot drill comes to mind.

You mean strictly limited to drills from pistol-training.com? I honestly think all of them would be useful for improving performance in competition. Likewise you could go to http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php and look through the dozens of USPSA classifiers. Many are easy enough to set up at a range by yourself, and if you can get an HONEST score for yourself you can determine your hit factor and use www.cmcalc.com to see how you would stack up against other USPSA shooters on each drill.

Finally, you can pick up "Refinement and Repetition" by Steve Anderson to get a bunch of dry fire drills that will help with all things shooting, including competition performance.

[ToddG]

Sorry if you hate parts of the English language.

Awesome.

[167]

I pretty much agree that there needs to be base of fundamental skill before competing. Where would you more experienced guys put that base level, and what would you use to see if a shooter was at that level yet?

[EmanP]

Can they shoot something that resembles a group at 25 yards taking all the time in the world? Doesn't matter if it's a 6" group as long as it's a group and not a shotgun pattern. Amazingly, I shoot with quite a lot of guys that are considered to be 'more advanced' as they've been doing it for awhile, something like B class shooters, that can not. It was pretty damn sad. Anyway, that would be my baseline as well as being able to draw from a holster, follow direction, handle a firearm safely as well as moving safely with one.

[BN]

I pretty much agree that there needs to be base of fundamental skill before competing. Where would you more experienced guys put that base level, and what would you use to see if a shooter was at that level yet?

If a someone can safely complete the courses of fire at a competition, without endangering anyone, then they are ready for their first competition. They might not have good hits or a fast time, but they will have the experience of their first competition.

After each shooting experience, whether it is drills or competition, then the shooter can determine what the next experience should be.

A well rounded shooter should be able to do anything and everything.

[Jeff22]

I shoot both IPSC and IDPA fairly regularly and shoot PPC about once a year. IPSC and IDPA are best considered skill building exercises that have some training value and can be very entertaining. Any competitive event, of necessity, will not be able to duplicate the dynamics of a real gunfight.

But, depending upon the course of fire, there CAN be training value in the process, if you are shooting the IDPA classifier or an IPSC classifier that measures basic marksmanship and gun-handling skills. Some IPSC assault courses totally lack any connection to reality and are best avoided IMHO, but classifiers and most IDPA courses of fire are at least semi-realistic.

In such competitions I've most often always used whatever my duty gun was at the time. (Currently it's a Sig 226R-DAK in .40 cal.)

I'm more interested in getting trigger time than in shooting the matches as a competitive activity. Of course, I'm not particularly fast, so if I WAS attempting to become the next USPSA champion, I'd be way out of luck . . .

In general I prefer the course design philosophy of IDPA. However, I've been shooting IPSC on a sporadic basis at the local level since 1978, and I've become more involved recently since some of the local clubs have been regenerated.

I particularly like the USPSA Classifiers and the IDPA Classifier match as methods to test basic skills. Also, several of the local IPSC clubs have LOTS more steel and movers and bobbers and so forth than what we have available at the police range, so the courses of fire they use on match days are much more innovative that what we can do during in-service training at the PD.

There was a similar discussion on one of the other forums some years ago, and one poster had an interesting thought that kind of mirrors my philosophy -- he takes IDPA more seriously and competes in IPSC as a sort of structured practice session.

You'll get out of it what you put into it. Be safe and have fun with it. At the very least, shooting in matches can show you which skills to need to practice more . . .

Many clubs are now on the web and some post the course descriptions for upcoming stages on their web site. If clubs near you do this, you'll find this to be very useful. I don't look at the courses of fire in advance to figure out a "game plan" on how to shoot the course, but rather to get an idea of what skills I might need to practice before the match. (practice strong hand only and weak hand only shooting to start with, and engaging multiple targets from behind high & low cover)

Also, some clubs are more practically oriented, and some have more members who shoot purely as a competitive activity (usually the IPSC shooters, BUT NOT ALWAYS) and by looking at posted courses of fire you can determine which orientation the club has and if the matches they run have any value for what you're trying to accomplish. (Sometimes I'll look at the posted courses for one of the local clubs and if three out of five stages are "run & gun" assault courses [which don't fit in with my philosophy very well] I'll just go do something else that day . . . )

[rob_s]

This is another rare instance where I think I can contribute something to the discussion here...

I both agree and disagree with those that say you need a firm grasp of the fundamentals first, based on my own experience. When I started shooting IDPA I was a "plinker" at best but I nonetheless heard the buzzer and took off like a madman. To this day I am fighting a trigger snatch issue that probably started because of the timer.

but...

Had it not been for shooting IDPA, I never would have sought out actual instruction. It was through IDPA that I found out about "training classes", met people that hosted them, met people that had gone, saw people one month that sucked and two months later went to a class and came back better, etc.

So one could say that competition shooting both "caused" and gave me the tools to fix my shooting issues. But what it did was offer an incentive to improve, and an exposure to the tools to improve. As I try, now, to fix those issues I'm using it as the same thing. I want to make Expert by August, and hopefully Master after that. I have a plan in place to use dryfire, weekly range trips, drills, and USPSA shooting, to get there.
(yes I'm aware that I'm shooting USPSA to improve my classification at IDPA, it's a convenience/round count issue)

[ToddG]

I do think that is a very good (and important) point from two angles:


people often put more effort into competition than they will into life saving skills; and,
people often don't realize just how subpar they are until they show up at a match and see other average bozos who can shoot circles around them.


So from a motivational standpoint, I can see competition being valuable for someone still in the shallow end of the kiddie pool. But that's assuming it does, in fact, motivate rather than humiliate.

From an efficiency of learning standpoint, though, I stick by my original comment that if you haven't built up a solid grasp of the fundamentals, shooting competition is just going to (a) reinforce bad habits and (b) use up precious resources.

[beltjones]

From an efficiency of learning standpoint, though, I stick by my original comment that if you haven't built up a solid grasp of the fundamentals, shooting competition is just going to (a) reinforce bad habits and (b) use up precious resources.

Exactly. People who deride competition for not teaching proper tactics are completely missing the boat. Not only does it not teach proper tactics, it doesn't even teach you how to shoot!

Still, like others have said, if you don't know how bad you are you won't know how good you can get, and competition will show you just how bad you are.

[jetfire]

Getting my ass handed to me at IDPA was my motivation to start taking shooting classes. I hate losing at anything, so losing at something I was passionate about was unsat. It's still unsat, actually.

[Mr_White]

Getting my ass handed to me

I'm getting ready for my turn at this next Sunday. I will be going to my very first USPSA match. Since I have no desire to practice with two different sets of gear, I shall be running my carry gear from concealment in Limited, shooting minor, JodyH style.

I'm trying to have exactly zero expectations about my performance other than competing safely. With all the discussion about people's performance at the Paul Bunyan USPSA match last weekend, I looked up the Pucker Factor classifier stage and considered different ways I might shoot it, how much time I think it would take me, and how many points I honestly think I would drop. Then I looked at the hit factors of some of the competitors at the match, especially the regular posters here on pistol-forum. I am impressed guys!

[EmanP]

And that was about the best i could have shot it given the circumstaces yet was still only like 77%.