Are we training right?

[Dagga Boy]

I apparently kicked over a hornets nest with this one. It falls in line with some discussions lately with Todd, so we are sort of curious as to the thoughts of those here at P-F. Please keep it civil, as this is really not a "you suck" thing as a "I don't think we have been doing things right" thing. This became an issue with Wayne and I because we questioned ourselves about what we were doing, and have decided to make a real effort to re-wire the circuit boards in how we train to what we want to be a sub-conscious actions.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?attachment_id=6609

[BLR]

Awesome article. I'm sure you are as bored as me, so I'll just ask the question - how would you design an informal shoot (forget organizations) to encompass this? Consider your "shouldn't training be harder" comment, what about distances? How large would the hit zones be?

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

[SeriousStudent]

Interesting.

Would this be a good test? Set up the same targets/distances in my living room, and use a SIRT pistol. Have a friend with a timer check for correct gun handling, including the "Wubbie Effect". The observer would be my buddy Dave who has completed First Responder Pistol, and is familiar with the concepts involved. He would set up the targets, and I'd have to walk into the room and solve the problem.

I do practice something like this already in my house, but with a single shoot and a single no-shoot. I use picture of my son and/or daughter's face for the no-shoot, something that MSG Paul Howe posted.

[Totem Polar]

I am so far out on the amateur fringe (relative to many, if not most P-F'ers) here that I am hesitant to chime in. But what the hey, I will anyways: my thinking is that if it is actually a gunfight, then the threats to the well-being of "no-shoots" posed by the "targets" still standing, active and fighting would be as great as by your muzzling, let alone the threat to yourself. I get the finger off, for transitioning, but why sacrifice speed if bullets are actually flying and the risk is already high and threats need to be stopped ASAP? I'm talking about a conscious break in muzzle alignment while tracking from active to active. I'm asking from the perspective of someone who has not been there and done that, so grain of salt and all. I'm really talking about a doctrine of competing harms here, ie: crossing an innocent < giving a fighting, moving bad person more time to wreak damage and havoc.

[Dagga Boy]

I am so far out on the amateur fringe (relative to many, if not most P-F'ers) here that I am hesitant to chime in. But what the hey, I will anyways: my thinking is that if it is actually a gunfight, then the threats to the well-being of "no-shoots" posed by the "targets" still standing, active and fighting would be as great as by your muzzling, let alone the threat to yourself. I get the finger off, for transitioning, but why sacrifice speed if bullets are actually flying and the risk is already high and threats need to be stopped ASAP? I'm talking about a conscious break in muzzle alignment while tracking from active to active. I'm asking from the perspective of someone who has not been there and done that, so grain of salt and all. I'm really talking about a doctrine of competing harms here, ie: crossing an innocent < giving a fighting, moving bad person more time to wreak damage and havoc.

IF you felt you had to cross an innocent with a muzzle, should that be a very conscious decision that you can articulate, or should it be an ingrained heavily practiced sub-conscious action done with no thought?

[GJM]

Go bird hunting with a dog, or big game hunting with another hunter, and this stuff goes from the theoretical to the actual.

[Lot2Learn]

Good article, honestly being one of those gun gamer guys as well as someone who has sought out training to help with firearms manipulation/ defensive shooting I have never really thought about it like that. I honestly don't know what to say. It is too easy to say "I would never break any of the four firearms rules under stress." I am not sure that is the case. None of us are immune from making mistakes. Is it taboo to say that maybe breaking one of the firearms rules is, dare I say acceptable? Is it when we start breaking them in pairs that we run into real problems? I don't know? I am just trying to be objective...There are too many "what if" situations. Before anyone puts me on blast, hear me out.

I have never had to use a firearm to protect myself, Lord willing I never will. It just seems to me that people that do use them in a line of work that involves pointing them at other people may have them pointed at something that they don't want to destroy. What comes to mind is muzzle sweeping your comrades inadvertently. Like I said, I have never had to use a firearm in that capacity, nor am I qualified to speak on the behalf of those who have.

I guess I am just using this forum as a way to express my thoughts on a scenario that I have never really thought of. The author brings up solid points. I think that I may need to reprogram my thinking, I certainly wouldn't want to point a firearm at someone who doesn't need it...

[Dagga Boy]

Awesome article. I'm sure you are as bored as me, so I'll just ask the question - how would you design an informal shoot (forget organizations) to encompass this? Consider your "shouldn't training be harder" comment, what about distances? How large would the hit zones be?

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

To me, we really don't have to do much in training or competition. What Wayne and I will be dropping on our students in class next week will be some "Innocent, obvious non-combatant simulators" around the range and targets. We will plan on shooting some multiples with these around, AND they will have some they just need to move around. There are a variety of techniques out there to move around non-combatants, shoot around non-combatants, and to manipulate firearms around them. The new goal is to start making these gun handling skills a well practiced skill set in order to actually "over learn" how to deal with them seamlessly, and make the scenarios where you cross a muzzle (felony assault everywhere I can think of in the U.S.) something that is an anomaly that you can articulate why you consciously made a decision to do this. I would think this not only has some practical "goodness' to it, but also forces shooters to really think about what they are doing and understand it. The ability to really dissect "why" we are doing things REALLY helps later when you may have to explain that to somebody who can both incarcerate you for your actions, ruin you financially, or all of the above.

[Clobbersaurus]

Very interesting thread. I am way, way out of my lane here, but when you ran this drill, did you find going higher or lower faster when coming off target and moving the muzzle safely around the "innocent"? I also realize that going high or low is a situational decision, but based on this drill, what were your take aways?

[Dagga Boy]

We didn't go high because of the range restrictions on muzzle height. I am not a big fan of the high ready for how most folks are using it. This may be the scenario where I really like it. What I am looking to do is to try to set stuff up to figure out what are the best TTP's for dealing with innocents in various capacities...between targets, blocking movement, simply "around the shooter", etc.

There was a time in my shooting life when it was considered perfectly acceptable, and taught, to keep your finger on the trigger all the time for all of the EXACT same reasons that people are justifying muzzling everything without a thought. We "learned" that we can in fact work very efficiently and with little or no downside to working with the trigger finger in register. It is now something we look back at with embarrassment that it was normal. I propose we really try to figure this out, and hopefully in a couple of decades the thought of running of muzzle all over everything will be something where everyone laughs because they couldn't believe we were that stupid.