I had a conversation with a training supervisor the other day and he told me that the tactics he/they/the unit teaches is always against pistols since the probability of rifles being used is so slim there is no reason to teach that level of safety.
So my question for you guys is, do you train tactics / cover against rifle threats or pistol threats? Keep in mind rifle threats will obviously cover any pistol threat but pistol threats will not cover rifle threats...
Most of my "real" training was in the Army, so cover was primarily about rifles and MG bullets - IOW, get low, use a whole lot of dirt, large trees, concrete, etc.
What I do now is more about concealment than cover, since most modern construction won't stop most pistol bullets, let alone rifle rounds. The idea I am operating under is, if they can't see me, yes, they might try to shoot me anyway, but, what are they shooting at? Odds are much less that I'll get hit if they can't see me.
We do training against rifles mainly but we have team tactics too being Army. Police you could be the only one and the pistol is there. The biggest issue is trying to break away from a rifle threat with only a pistol.
My wife and I discuss this alot now.
With the state of society as it is these days, I think it wise to train against both scenarios. As has been seen over the last few years there have been quite a few instances where gunmen have used rifles in their shooting sprees.
Even though many of us aren't active duty soldiers faced with full blown combat duties and risks, there is still that danger from the butt head that has decided to bonkers on everyone using a rifle to do so.
I am cannot think of a reason why my tactics would change based on the threat's weapon. My definition of cover might change (which would inform my application of tactics) but my tactics would not change.
C Class shooter.
I think we have been dancing around this issue since the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. Related topics have been:
what handgun do you carry
how much spare ammo
what kind of BUG
handgun vs carbine measured performance
My personal, anecdotally informed view, is that, always subject to the vagaries of luck, in handgun on handgun, Givens type defensive scenarios, our PF strong practiced members would do very well. I see rifle on handgun encounters differently. See the recent post by Talionis, describing how much more effective the long gun is in his hands than the handgun, despite his primary emphasis on handgun training. Probably the same reason most hunters use a long gun and most military forces use the long gun as primary.
If the bad guy or guys has a long gun, my personal view is the odds got a lot worse and your required technical ability to be successful just went way up.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
What do you gain by treating them differently? Honest question, I've never been shot at.
"Sapiens dicit: 'Ignoscere divinum est, sed noli pretium plenum pro pizza sero allata solvere.'" - Michelangelo
As I stated, if you train to use cover specifically against pistol caliber you can get away with a lot more than you would if you were to train against rifle caliber.Originally Posted by Chance
Vehicle, for example are butter to most rifle calibers (especially 762).
I've heard some dumb shit when it comes to police training, that's right up there towards the top level of dumb shit I've heard spouted. Train for the worst case, hope for the best. Not train for the best case and hope the worst case never happens.
Last edited by Lon; 03-12-2016 at 06:54 PM.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
PD training is usually complete shit, taught by complete shit instructors reciting from textbook/lesson plan bullshit.
Reply With Quote