Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathon's Crystal Ball Predictions

[GJM]

I knew Jeff Cooper from 1991 until the time of his death. My wife and I hunted in Botswana on our honeymoon with “his” outfitter, Vira Safaris. My wife and I took multiple classes with him. I have a gold medal from him, celebrating my lion hunt, and exchanged countless letters with him. He deeply influenced my life and those of many others that trained with him. In particular, his writing inspired me, and it was his ability to write about shooting and hunting, that differentiated him from other skilled shooters, and did so much for modern firearms training.

One thing he told me, was that it was a failing to use profanity in written communication, and I have tried to follow his guidance ever since. I think I did use “bitches” recently on the forum, but it was in jest. That said, I cringe when people use profanity in written communication, and wish more people heard Jeff’s advice, because written profanity detracts from otherwise well expressed opinions.

[MickAK]

The question that I have about this is whether newer shooters should even be shooting when rapidly moving, regardless of the sighting modality, especially in defensive training. Hence, whether better hits from a static position are a higher priority and more valuable skill than something that even skilled shooters should probably avoid doing unless absolutely necessary.

I would vote yes, because just like shooting with speed if newer shooters don't get comfortable shooting with movement they never will.

Lots has been said about the value of shooting faster than your comfort zone. I think it's also applicable to movement. Not because movement is that much of a tactical advantage but because there's a lot of tactical advantage to running the fuck away as fast as you can once your people are clear. Getting out of static mode helps maintain that as an option.

This is one of the reasons the Law Enforcement UOF thread is so valuable. These are trained people, some of whom have decades of experience. They have a rough time with it. I train to engage multiple targets often but I keep booking it as an option after reviewing those shoots.

[JCN]

I would vote yes, because just like shooting with speed if newer shooters don't get comfortable shooting with movement they never will.

Lots has been said about the value of shooting faster than your comfort zone. I think it's also applicable to movement. Not because movement is that much of a tactical advantage but because there's a lot of tactical advantage to running the fuck away as fast as you can once your people are clear. Getting out of static mode helps maintain that as an option.

This is one of the reasons the Law Enforcement UOF thread is so valuable. These are trained people, some of whom have decades of experience. They have a rough time with it. I train to engage multiple targets often but I keep booking it as an option after reviewing those shoots.

That’s why it boggles my mind that some people think the stand and shoot Timmy drills are all they should practice and that gaming will get you kilt in the street.

I also question how much we should dumb down or tailor our philosophy to the lowest common denominator.

[MickAK]

That’s why it boggles my mind that some people think the stand and shoot Timmy drills are all they should practice and that gaming will get you kilt in the street.

I also question how much we should dumb down or tailor our philosophy to the lowest common denominator.

The 'gaming will get you kilt in the street' people have good points honestly.

The reason they're wrong is people who game reliably shoot, because people who game make shooting a part of their life instead of an intrusion on their lives.

Shooting used to be fun. Now it's more like noisy taxes. There's no amount of gaming bad habits that outweigh not going to the range for a year because the yard needs mowed.

[YVK]

I would vote yes, because just like shooting with speed if newer shooters don't get comfortable shooting with movement they never will.

Question is if, realistically, they ever have to. Do I take these on the move or do I post and shoot is something that is tested every weekend. The more I see of it, the more I am leaning towards "if you have to run - run, and if you have to shoot - shoot" for outside of USPSA applications.

[MickAK]

Question is if they ever have to. Do I take these on the move or do I post and shoot is something that is tested every weekend. The more I see of it, the more I am leaning towards "if you have to run - run, and if you have to shoot - shoot" for outside of USPSA applications.

Well, you might not get that choice that clearly.

I'd stand and die for my wife and kid. Once they're out of the way, I'm better off running a lot of the time. Which is which is unlikely to be as clear as a stage no matter how well designed.

Shoot poorly on the move or shoot well posted is an easy choice, but I think having other choices is better.

Just like with speed, there's going to be a balance, and people will end up on the wrong side of it often. But if you don't tip that scale you don't ever get there.

[YVK]

Well, you might not get that choice that clearly.

I'd stand and die for my wife and kid. Once they're out of the way, I'm better off running a lot of the time. Which is which is unlikely to be as clear as a stage no matter how well designed.

Shoot poorly on the move or shoot well posted is an easy choice, but I think having other choices is better.

Just like with speed, there's going to be a balance, and people will end up on the wrong side of it often. But if you don't tip that scale you don't ever get there.

Indeed. Well stated. Perhaps I shouldn't be that binary. Probably a personal bias from having to go a lot more often to a public indoors range during the winter and seeing many shooters barely able to hit standing still.

All of that doesn't touch on my experience of seeing people do much better on the move with dots rather than irons. But those are not newer shooters.

[Nephrology]

Indeed. Well stated. Perhaps I shouldn't be that binary. Probably a personal bias from having to go a lot more often to a public indoors range during the winter and seeing many shooters barely able to hit standing still.

All of that doesn't touch on my experience of seeing people do much better on the move with dots rather than irons. But those are not newer shooters.

Once I switched to dots there was absolutely no going back. There was no context specific advantage for me - literally everything I could possibly do with a handgun I did better. Draw to accurate first round, faster splits, insanely improved accuracy at distance. Like everything better. the "2000 round learning curve" was also not an issue for me. I dry fired for a day and got 85% of the way there. a couple range trips later and I can't even imagine using irons ever again.

I am not a prodidgy or especially gifted shooter by any means but with my presbyopia the red dot just took all of the struggle out of shooting handguns for me. I had actually basically stopped caring about shooting handguns until I converted to the dot. Now my eyes are no longer strained and tired at the end of a day at the range. Dry fire gives me substantially more useful feedback than it did before and my trigger press has improved too.

Just about the only downside is my glock 43s are a lot harder to pocket carry than they used to be ...

[MistWolf]

This is a great thread. I wish Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorne would read it.

Don't think they haven't.

[RJ]

That's my experience. I'm been super lucky in retaining excellent vision (except for reading), and they tell me that won't change.

Pro tip: They lie.


On topic - Great discussion. High SNR threads like this that make average at best shooters like me think are what p-f should be about.