Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Test of movement and cover

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY

    Test of movement and cover

    http://www.activeresponsetraining.ne...-in-a-gunfight

    Greg E. has a very interesting test of using cover and movement. Abstract: Using revolvers and Code Eagle, movement and cover reduced hits on the participants.

    A couple of thoughts. Greg mentions hand hits with Code Eage rounds. That's the truth. I took one in the hand in a night FOF. For a second I thought I was really hurt as the red goo looked like blood for a second. Ouch. Another FOF, my 642 took a hit on the cylinder face.

    Second, shot an IDPA style carbine match. The new rules that allow one not to move even if the stage called for it and the fault lines which allowed you actually to be out in the open (is that bad design?) seem counter to sound doctrine if Greg is correct. I know the changes were for high end whiners in big matches. However, if the matches have any (is it training - OMG!!) touching of reality for the everyday defensive shooter, the new rules are silly. Dead horse shooting, though, is now a stage!

    I do like carbine matches! I saw my first new Ruger 9 mm carbine. I want one!! Nothing is like a good match and then having your squad going to a nice mom and pop Mexican restaurant. Seafood enchiladas - yum (a touch pricey - about the price of a good box of 'tactical ammo'. Had three rounds that had a primer hit and didn't go boom. Some cheapy reload crap bought during an Obama crisis and I thought I would shoot them.

  2. #2
    Interesting article by Greg. He is a quality trainer and the two classes I have taken with him were both well done. I was able to get Simunitions at our dept before I was even a range officer because I believe it was the best training available at the time and still is when used properly. Hand hits are super common. Running 300 people through 6 scenarios a year for 18 years I can recall A LOT of hand hits and they were the only time I saw broken skin from handgun Sims even when gloves were worn. Greg makes a good point about the possibility of "point shooting" or target focus being a possibility. If this is/was the case then using revolvers for participants used to semi autos could be a factor. The use of just 2 rounds may also be a factor particularly in tracking or even engaging a person partially obscured by cover. It needs to be studied more for sure and good on him for this addition to his previous movement study using FoF marking rounds.

  3. #3
    Site Supporter Eli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Attalla, Alabama.
    Quote Originally Posted by octagon View Post
    Hand hits are super common. Running 300 people through 6 scenarios a year for 18 years I can recall A LOT of hand hits ....
    Not LE and have only been through a half dozen or so classes that had a FOF element...but there were hand/gun hits in every class.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    Second, shot an IDPA style carbine match. The new rules that allow one not to move even if the stage called for it and the fault lines which allowed you actually to be out in the open (is that bad design?) seem counter to sound doctrine if Greg is correct. I know the changes were for high end whiners in big matches. However, if the matches have any (is it training - OMG!!) touching of reality for the everyday defensive shooter, the new rules are silly. Dead horse shooting, though, is now a stage!
    Not to beat a dead horse, but the reason the rules were changed is because they were too subjective and were detrimental to competitive equity. When an SO gives you a 3 second penalty bc you're too far out from behind cover then the next shooter stands even further out from behind cover and gets no penalty, and the excuse you're given is that you're master class and should know better while the other person is a sharpshooter, it tends to drive people away from the sport.

  5. #5
    I understand the rationale for the adoption of fault lines in IDPA. Allowing only a single fault line per position had an unintended consequence, now they have to have a policy that targets not require a dangerous lean from that one fault line.

    The no movement required change is harder to justify. You are moving or you are not. True, most of us weren't moving very fast but we were moving.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    I understand the rationale for the adoption of fault lines in IDPA. Allowing only a single fault line per position had an unintended consequence, now they have to have a policy that targets not require a dangerous lean from that one fault line.

    The no movement required change is harder to justify. You are moving or you are not. True, most of us weren't moving very fast but we were moving.
    Don't you think it's better that shooting on the move be left as a tactical decision by the competitor to determine if the payoff in time savings and efficiency for shooting on the move is worth the potential drop in accuracy? That's more applicable to the "real world" than mandating a competitor shoot it a particular way.

  7. #7
    It would take some unusual stage design to make it a hard choice. Early days of The Masters worked on stuff like that.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  8. #8
    An interesting test.

    I wonder what the results would be if one participant could only draw and shoot when the other started firing by surprise; simulating a realistic self defense scenario where the bad guy has the advantage of surprise.
    The Minority Marksman.
    "When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
    -a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    The linked article made me think of Ernest Langdon's Advanced Pistol Class. It's been eight years since I took that course, but if I could be so gauche as to quote my own AAR...

    Quote Originally Posted by JSGlock34 View Post
    Then it was time to put it all together – engaging moving targets while moving. This was the pinnacle event for several reasons – obviously combining several of the skills we had worked on. But Ernest sums up the real world application of this skillset succinctly – “Nobody is going to stand still in a gunfight.” He noted that 'Proximity negates skill' - your ability to create distance from an opponent will favor your training in a gunfight - even an untrained adversary can hit a close, stationary target. Our ability to score effective hits while moving would enhance our ability to fight and win.
    As for IDPA changing the shoot on the move policy, besides the competitive equity issues, Gio's comment that the shooter should make the choice about whether to engage targets on the move is exactly what IDPA leadership had in mind.

    DOWN ZERO BLOG: No penalty for not moving on a stage

    In IDPA scenarios, shooters can explore their own skill levels without the dangers involved with a real gunfight. They can choose which targets in the scenario they feel comfortable shooting on the move or shooting from a static position. I feel that course of fire design should encourage shooting on the move but not require it per se. A good course of fire will give shooters of different skill levels different options. A marksman may choose to move to a position and shoot the first target then move to the second position to shoot the second target while a master class shooter may just continue moving while shooting each target. This way the shooter determines their own comfort level and their own time, therefore their own score. With the new scoring of 1 second per point, I feel this is even more important to encouraging accuracy. Judicious use of non-threat targets in these scenarios makes the situation even more realistic, as in a real-life situation a shooter mostly will stop to make a more precise shot if there are civilians around.

    Personally, I'll add that most IDPA stages I've observed (or shot myself) that required "shoot on the move" did little to reinforce either realism or tactically sound decisions, which seems at odds with the intent of the sport . The retreat stage on the IDPA classifier is illustrative - how many times have you seen a competitor retreat at full speed, while drawing the weapon on the move? Well, almost never, because it would be competitively disadvantageous to increase your distance from the targets before shooting. Instead we typically see the shooter complete the draw before starting movement, which then largely consists of "baby steps" away from the targets.

    Under the new rules, shooters can decide to move at speed to cover instead of engaging on the move, which may well be the more sound decision for them from either a competitive or defensive viewpoint, and it reduces subjectivity in rules enforcement. I think it's a change for the better.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •