Side bar conversation: Realistic training vs realism

[KevH]

(SIDE CONVERSATION MOVED FROM AMMO SUBFORUM THREAD - MOD)

@feudist

What you're describing is not that uncommon.

I highly doubt your ammo was your variable or even the gun for that matter.

You are describing a "vetting process" with ammo during normal conditions.

Your malfunctions appeared during "Oh SNAP!" moments (being charged by dogs). Watch a bunch of OIS body cam videos and you will frequently see malfunctions that I'm sure the involved officers seldom or never experienced in training. I can tell you from prior experience that your brain/body do weird things under stress and that combined psychological/physiological response commonly causes issues between your biological hand and your mechanical gun.

There is NO WAY to replicate real life lethal force scenarios in training....NONE! Why? Because your body only produces and discharges chemicals during those type of situations. I think the closest thing you can do is some type of SIMS that actually induces pain, but even that isn't quite the same. The only way to get inoculated to stress (combat) is equal stress (combat). Since that is very rare in civilized society chances are you will never reach that point. Even then there are other variables.

The only thing you can do is try to train as best you can. This is why malfunction clearance drills are important and should become mechanical second nature. As for your Gen2 Glock, I wouldn't trust the opinion of a "gunsmith." Back to Glock it would have gone.

For me the ammo choice is easy. I carry Federal HST. My department issues it. It works in everything. We know because we have tested it in damn near everything. I have always individually visually inspected each round of my carry ammo before it goes in the magazine and regularly check rounds that have been chambered for bullet setback, but in a 9mm it is pretty rare. I would have no qualms carrying Remington Golden Saber (I have in the past), Speer Gold-Dot, or any of the other reputable rounds.

Carrying and training with a back-up gun (and the transition to it) is sound practice.

[DDTSGM]

There is NO WAY to replicate real life lethal force scenarios in training....NONE!

Why? Because your body only produces and discharges chemicals during those type of situations. I think the closest thing you can do is some type of SIMS that actually induces pain, but even that isn't quite the same.

The only way to get inoculated to stress (combat) is equal stress (combat). Since that is very rare in civilized society chances are you will never reach that point. Even then there are other variables.

So that first sentence was pretty adamant and also pretty much flies in the face of everything we've learned about reality-based training over the last decade or so.

The fear of injury makes properly structured SIM training an emotionally significant event and anchors the proper response in the brain's amygdala (actually amygdalae, there are two). This anchors the response - as I said properly structured reality-based training anchors a proper response.

At the simplest level, think of it this way, after a gunfighter in the old west survived his first gunfight, he was probably less stressed about the second one, and thus performed better. The problem was surviving the first gunfight. Properly structured reality-based training means that officers experience and win that first gunfight without the risk of death.

You are probably getting tired of me saying properly structured, but, it's damn important. Many well-meaning instructors put officers through scenarios that can actually hamper their survival skills by increasing their fear or anxiety because of negative outcomes.

The only thing you can do is try to train as best you can. This is why malfunction clearance drills are important and should become mechanical second nature. As for your Gen2 Glock, I wouldn't trust the opinion of a "gunsmith." Back to Glock it would have gone.

For me the ammo choice is easy. I carry Federal HST. My department issues it. It works in everything. We know because we have tested it in damn near everything. I have always individually visually inspected each round of my carry ammo before it goes in the magazine and regularly check rounds that have been chambered for bullet setback, but in a 9mm it is pretty rare. I would have no qualms carrying Remington Golden Saber (I have in the past), Speer Gold-Dot, or any of the other reputable rounds.

Carrying and training with a back-up gun (and the transition to it) is sound practice.

Have you ever heard of plunk testing carry rounds? In addition to visual inspection, field strip your pistol and 'plunk' each duty round into the chamber to make sure they will chamber.

[KevH]

So that first sentence was pretty adamant and also pretty much flies in the face of everything we've learned about reality-based training over the last decade or so.

Who is the "we" you are referencing? I've been a California POST Firearms Instructor for over a decade and have attended plenty of private training on the matter including training provided by Force Science Institute and others. Nothing about that statement conflicts with any training I have had nor with my personal experience with lethal force or with my experience as a detective assigned to a Major Crimes Unit that investigates officer involved shootings.

SIMS and the like, no matter how well structured and with some risk/pain, cannot truly replicate a real life lethal force encounter. The true "fight or flight" that kicks in knowing...

a) You may die
b) You are likely about to kill another human being
c) Your life may never be the same (arrest, lawsuits, etc.)

...causes your body to dump a huge amount of cortisol, as well as other hormones, into you system that have a number of physiological effects, which include but are not limited to, increased strength, jittering for hours to days, lack of sleep, and an interrupted gastrointestinal tract. That cortisol dump and the changes it causes cannot be replicated. Some trainers have tried by experimentally injecting steroids during training scenarios. It cannot truly replicate real life therefore you cannot inoculate yourself to the stresses of actual combat through training.

I've counseled about a dozen cops about these effects or about how they feel they screwed something up during a lethal force encounter when in fact they did everything right or the best way their body would allow them to function at the time.

The answer is to train as realistically and as best that you can and also train for eventualities such as equipment malfunctions. Having a solid foundation of skills, the ability to function near perfect under normal circumstances and the ability to problem solve in the moment is typically the best that we can get unless we have exposure to the real thing. Prolonged exposure to the real thing causes other issues, but that is another topic.

This all is applicable to the OP who experienced a weapon malfunction during an actual event. What I am saying is that it is fairly common, and likely due to the nature of the event and human response rather than the ammunition he was using.

Have you ever heard of plunk testing carry rounds? In addition to visual inspection, field strip your pistol and 'plunk' each duty round into the chamber to make sure they will chamber.

I have heard of it and don't find it necessary with quality factory ammo. If you want to get really fancy you can use a gauge for all your ammo, but it isn't necessary. I'm more worried about flipped primers (which I have seen).

[DDTSGM]

Who is the "we" you are referencing? I've been a California POST Firearms Instructor for over a decade and have attended plenty of private training on the matter including training provided by Force Science Institute and others. Nothing about that statement conflicts with any training I have had nor with my personal experience with lethal force or with my experience as a detective assigned to a Major Crimes Unit that investigates officer involved shootings.

SIMS and the like, no matter how well structured and with some risk/pain, cannot truly replicate a real life lethal force encounter. The true "fight or flight" that kicks in knowing...

a) You may die
b) You are likely about to kill another human being
c) Your life may never be the same (arrest, lawsuits, etc.)

...causes your body to dump a huge amount of cortisol, as well as other hormones, into you system that have a number of physiological effects, which include but are not limited to, increased strength, jittering for hours to days, lack of sleep, and an interrupted gastrointestinal tract. That cortisol dump and the changes it causes cannot be replicated. Some trainers have tried by experimentally injecting steroids during training scenarios. It cannot truly replicate real life therefore you cannot inoculate yourself to the stresses of actual combat through training.

Are we talking about inculcating a proper response? Or, the psychological and physiological after effects of the event? There is a difference.

In terms of getting a sub-optimal grip during a use-of-force encounter, your statement below is entirely correct.

The answer is to train as realistically and as best that you can and also train for eventualities such as equipment malfunctions. Having a solid foundation of skills, the ability to function near perfect under normal circumstances and the ability to problem solve in the moment is typically the best that we can get unless we have exposure to the real thing. Prolonged exposure to the real thing causes other issues, but that is another topic.

[KevH]

Are we talking about inculcating a proper response? Or, the psychological and physiological after effects of the event? There is a difference.

I'm speaking with regards to what the original poster, @feudist, asked about.

He described a malfunction that did not occur in a controlled setting, but that did occur during an event of somewhat extreme stress.

As humans under extreme stress, we have a physiological response during the event. This effects how we perform during the event and how we cope with it post-event, both psychologically and physiologically. It's been studied extensively by people much smarter than me and I have experienced it multiple times and have seen it over and over again in others.

[BehindBlueI's]

I've mentioned several times that in my shooting during my internal monologue with myself I said "this is just like the Sims course..." and it was calming. I know I, and many others, have gotten "lost" in the VATS machine and had to be brought back to reality when we moved forward to handcuff what was actually light projected on a screen and not a real bad guy.

I can't say it's the same level of response, but in the heat of the moment it felt pretty similar to me. Just more so.

Aftermath is, of course, nothing alike. After the real shooting everything was boring, nothing held my attention, it took awhile to adjust back to the mundane world and mundane concerns and mundane entertainments. SIMs you just laugh it off, learn something, and do it again.

[RJ]

I spent 33 years in the field of Instructional Systems Design.

I've led development teams involving a wide range of Live/Virtual/Constructive simulations, ranging from immersive battlespace training at Brigade Level Armored/Armored Infantry units involving 1,000+ soldiers in real-time, to complex Submarine Combat Systems to ab initio elementary flying training. Over that period I also worked with ISD experts in conducting Training Needs Analysis to develop Training Performance Standards as well as Terminal (Performance) and Enabling (Supporting) Learning Objectives. One point that's critical is understanding the Target Population, in terms of background of the user set and where they start in the learning contiuum.

Training simulations can have a very very highly developed degree of "realiism". What's key however is to determine how much "realisim" matters. This is obviously constrained by budget and development resources.

A simulation can be "highly realistic" and yet fail spectacularly in training effectiveness. And a simple solution can sometimes be of measurable benefit to the training population. One has to quantify this with data, before and after, and measure with achievement against objective performance standards.

Obviously I'm not anywhere familiar with what happens in a "real" gunfight. On this forum, I'm just some retired dude trying to avoid ending up on YouTube. But this is a pretty interesting topic to me; I'm looking forward to hearing what folks think and, if I can, add something to the discussion. Will be following this thread.

[feudist]

Training with a handgun is very difficult to make realistic. It's very constrained by the downrange hazard from shooting at many angles and positions.

Dry fire can help but most people find it boring.FATS and Sims take a lot of resources and is not available to most people and pretty limited even to LEO.

Shoot houses have the same issues with the added liability/danger of live fire.

This really leaves flat ranges as the default solution. This is even more restrictive on indoor ranges, which according to Werner is where most people are forced to shoot.

Targets are another issue. 99.9 % of shooting is done at paper targets with an abstract shape. Awerbuck made a point about penetration angles on 3d targets vs 1d.

There are 3d balloon targets that can be bought. I fashion my own. Again, only very low repetitions can be obtained due to set up hassles.

Even simple shoot/no shoot training is resource intensive and requires having someone else set your target. Same same malfunction training.

It's really not a mystery where 15-20% hit rates come from.

What to do?

[Gun Mutt]

Targets are another issue. 99.9 % of shooting is done at paper targets with an abstract shape. Awerbuck made a point about penetration angles on 3d targets vs 1d.

Gawd, but I loved Louie. Training under him was a privilege, getting to simply sit and visit with him (and Snake, of course!) was an honor.

He taught me this: If you're a dog owner, save your empty dog food bags.
Cut the open end off evenly, then cut it in half lengthwise and presto, two diy 3D targets.
Bend the frame of a wire coat hanger to support the bag half and poke the hook through the top. Hang it in front of a safe backstop and get to work.

When I had regular access to private property for my range time, I shot up a shit ton of dog food bags. The bags themselves were great targets in that they're usually multicolored with weird patterns and were very useful for helping people learn to shoot center of mass instead of just chasing the damn bullseye.

When I ran bars and nightclubs for a living, I had a nearly unlimited supply of free t-shirts from vendors and with a little effort & tape, you could put a t-shirt over the dog food bag and have a torso & head target.

[BehindBlueI's]

Training with a handgun is very difficult to make realistic. It's very constrained by the downrange hazard from shooting at many angles and positions.

Dry fire can help but most people find it boring.FATS and Sims take a lot of resources and is not available to most people and pretty limited even to LEO.

Shoot houses have the same issues with the added liability/danger of live fire.

This really leaves flat ranges as the default solution. This is even more restrictive on indoor ranges, which according to Werner is where most people are forced to shoot.

Targets are another issue. 99.9 % of shooting is done at paper targets with an abstract shape. Awerbuck made a point about penetration angles on 3d targets vs 1d.

There are 3d balloon targets that can be bought. I fashion my own. Again, only very low repetitions can be obtained due to set up hassles.

Even simple shoot/no shoot training is resource intensive and requires having someone else set your target. Same same malfunction training.

It's really not a mystery where 15-20% hit rates come from.

What to do?

I'm lucky to have access to a much better training facility then most and also have private land I can shoot on alone and move around safely. Even with that, I *very* seldom get to shoot a moving target while on the move myself. I don't think I've ever shot a 3D moving target, period. There's definitely limitations and no one thing makes up the totality of a real event.