At home non ammo target and training ideas

[dbateman]

This seems like a nonserious response. Which, hey I understand, because I love to be silly. But for real, it's hard for me to believe you are actually saying that you think ASP, Rings, NLT, and whoever else makes inert trainers is doing so to teach people bad habits. Unless that's your real answer, why do you think they exist?

No, I think people being stupid teaches people bad habits regardless if is a plastic gun or not.

Can you please explain to me why an instructor would need to walk in front of the firing line wile people are shooting other than the fact that he is an idiot who will probably end up doing it one day during live fire.

To answer your question I think they are training aid good for teaching people who have never handled a firearm before, I think they're a good tool for teaching CQB and how to deal with armed opponents. I do however feel that if you cannot obey the safety rules with a plastic firearm you have no business using a real one.

Do you think it's ok to muzzle your partner wile clearing ? What about muzzling yourself wile exiting your car ? Is that ok because you know it's only a toy gun.

[ToddG]

Can you please explain to me why an instructor would need to walk in front of the firing line wile people are shooting other than the fact that he is an idiot who will probably end up doing it one day during live fire.

Can you show an example of that happening?

Your entire argument seems to revolve around the idea that people won't treat real guns as something special. I find it rather absurd. The whole reason we have the cardinal rules of firearms safety is because we recognize that guns need to be treated specially.

To answer your question I think they are training aid good for teaching people who have never handled a firearm before, I think they're a good tool for teaching CQB and how to deal with armed opponents. I do however feel that if you cannot obey the safety rules with a plastic firearm you have no business using a real one.

Why is it OK to point one at someone if you're doing "CQB" but not if you're assessing someone's stance or grip?

[Byron]

Just so everyone is on the same page for this discussion, I believe that dbateman is criticizing the activities seen in this video:

Can you please explain to me why an instructor would need to walk in front of the firing line wile people are shooting other than the fact that he is an idiot who will probably end up doing it one day during live fire.

Well, first of all, no one is "shooting." It's not a real "firing line." They have pink laserguns. They project light. The models in the video have plastic slides. They don't reciprocate. They don't go "bang bang bang." The difference is immediately apparent in the hand.

I personally don't think Mike Hughes is an "idiot." I would bet you good money that he didn't just toss down a duffle bag mixed with live weapons and SIRTs and say, "Oh, please don't pick up the live weapons. Only holster the SIRTs."

Any class where this type of activity occurs should have numerous, redundant safety precautions to ensure that no live weapons find their way onto the line. Knowing what I know of Mr. Hughes and his professionalism, I am confident that he took such measures.

I could think of dozens of reasons why being 'downrange' of a person could be extremely valuable while coaching them in the manipulation of an inert training pistol. The simple fact that standing in front of someone allows you to see different things than is possible from standing behind them (or to the side), should be apparent. The implications of this should be obvious: the more information an instructor has about his student, the better he can educate her. By standing in front of her, he might notice any number of problems with grip or trigger manipulation that might not have been evident from another angle.

If you have any evidence that Mike Hughes just waltzes out in front of people while they are firing live weapons, I'd love to see it. Until then, you can keep betting that he "will probably" do that one day, while I will personally bet that he "probably won't."

To answer your question I think they are training aid good for teaching people who have never handled a firearm before, I think they're a good tool for teaching CQB and how to deal with armed opponents. I do however feel that if you cannot obey the safety rules with a plastic firearm you have no business using a real one.

I fail to see how your point in red doesn't directly contradict your point in blue.

If you are pointing a plastic firearm at someone in a CQB scenario, you are violating firearm safety rules. People tend to accept this because... you're not actually using a firearm.

So you're fine with breaking these unbreakable rules for certain parts of training: you've made that clear. But if people break the exact same rules during a different part of training, which is actually lower stress and less chaotic, they are "idiots."

Do you think it's ok to muzzle your partner wile clearing ? What about muzzling yourself wile exiting your car ? Is that ok because you know it's only a toy gun.

Different contexts require different levels of scrutiny. I would think that was self-evident. As I noted from your quotes above, you implicitly acknowledge this by saying that inert training weapons are acceptable for CQB and for handing to complete neophytes.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

How far does your hard line stance extend? Do you think that people who point water pistols at each other are "idiots" who "have no business using a real [pistol]"?

[Mr_White]

Can you please explain to me why an instructor would need to walk in front of the firing line wile people are shooting other than the fact that he is an idiot who will probably end up doing it one day during live fire.

I'll refrain from commenting on the video because I haven't seen it and now I am in a place where it's blocked and I can't see it. But from what I read people saying about it, Byron's comments seem right on.

To answer your question I think they are training aid good for teaching people who have never handled a firearm before, I think they're a good tool for teaching CQB and how to deal with armed opponents. I do however feel that if you cannot obey the safety rules with a plastic firearm you have no business using a real one.

I agree that they are great for the first two things you said. But your second sentence does not comport with the first.

Do you think it's ok to muzzle your partner wile clearing ? What about muzzling yourself wile exiting your car ? Is that ok because you know it's only a toy gun.

No, I do not think it's ok if we are talking about an actual firearm. If we are talking about something that is not in fact a firearm and is obviously not one, such as a SIRT, a blue or red gun, or an actual toy gun, then yes it is ok. That's why those tools exist in training (and playing in the case of toys.)

Those are my direct answers to your questions. Byron's post expands on those points and I agree with what he wrote, so no need for me to rehash all of it.

[dbateman]

Can you show an example of that happening?

Your entire argument seems to revolve around the idea that people won't treat real guns as something special. I find it rather absurd. The whole reason we have the cardinal rules of firearms safety is because we recognize that guns need to be treated specially.


Why is it OK to point one at someone if you're doing "CQB" but not if you're assessing someone's stance or grip?

In CQB training it is necessary to point a firearm or hold a training knife to someone as part of their training, I can not think of any reason why you would need to asses someone grip or stance from the muzzle end...actually I think if I'm assessing someones grip/stance from the muzzle end I'm having a bad day.

[dbateman]

Just so everyone is on the same page for this discussion, I believe that dbateman is criticizing the activities seen in this video:




Well, first of all, no one is "shooting." It's not a real "firing line." They have pink laserguns. They project light. The models in the video have plastic slides. They don't reciprocate. They don't go "bang bang bang." The difference is immediately apparent in the hand.

I personally don't think Mike Hughes is an "idiot." I would bet you good money that he didn't just toss down a duffle bag mixed with live weapons and SIRTs and say, "Oh, please don't pick up the live weapons. Only holster the SIRTs."

Any class where this type of activity occurs should have numerous, redundant safety precautions to ensure that no live weapons find their way onto the line. Knowing what I know of Mr. Hughes and his professionalism, I am confident that he took such measures.

I could think of dozens of reasons why being 'downrange' of a person could be extremely valuable while coaching them in the manipulation of an inert training pistol. The simple fact that standing in front of someone allows you to see different things than is possible from standing behind them (or to the side), should be apparent. The implications of this should be obvious: the more information an instructor has about his student, the better he can educate her. By standing in front of her, he might notice any number of problems with grip or trigger manipulation that might not have been evident from another angle.

I have never seen anyone walk out in front of people using inert pistols or wile dry firing, I did try and think of why I would want to be out there if I was instructing and to be honest I don't think I would gain anything from being out in front of the firing line.

If you have any evidence that Mike Hughes just waltzes out in front of people while they are firing live weapons, I'd love to see it. Until then, you can keep betting that he "will probably" do that one day, while I will personally bet that he "probably won't."


I fail to see how your point in red doesn't directly contradict your point in blue.

If you are pointing a plastic firearm at someone in a CQB scenario, you are violating firearm safety rules. People tend to accept this because... you're not actually using a firearm.

Because it is necessary to do it as part of training it is a risk but it needed to be there to give the student experience, however when it comes to people who have never handled a firearm before when you are teaching them with a plastic gun or a real gun you are teaching them behaviour

So you're fine with breaking these unbreakable rules for certain parts of training: you've made that clear. But if people break the exact same rules during a different part of training, which is actually lower stress and less chaotic, they are "idiots."

No, if I am pointing a firearm at you I intend to shoot you (unless you comply). The same is true in training even though the weapon has been cleared or is inert it is a necessary part of training or it would not be done.

Different contexts require different levels of scrutiny. I would think that was self-evident. As I noted from your quotes above, you implicitly acknowledge this by saying that inert training weapons are acceptable for CQB and for handing to complete neophytes.

Not really they are at polar opposites, but one thing is for sure is you train sloppy you work worse if you're muzzling your partner as you clear the stair well with a plastic gun in training you are going to do it when you go to work... At least try not to do it in training so when your working and have 1000 things going thru your mind you don't need to remind yourself not to accidently shoot your team mate.


You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

How far does your hard line stance extend? Do you think that people who point water pistols at each other are "idiots" who "have no business using a real [pistol]"?

[orionz06]

Meh, the SIRT is a gun shaped laser.


I'm already over it. Gotta go watch hockey and dry fire....


...


...

with my cat.

[ToddG]

In CQB training it is necessary to point a firearm or hold a training knife to someone as part of their training, I can not think of any reason why you would need to asses someone grip or stance from the muzzle end...actually I think if I'm assessing someones grip/stance from the muzzle end I'm having a bad day.

But that's still inconsistent. "In CQB training it is necessary..." just says I can break the rules. You've decided that it's OK to break the rules for some things but not for others. Personally, I fail to see how it's safe to point a SIRT at someone in a force on force scenario but then unsafe to do so during some other training exercise. The SIRT doesn't become more dangerous; it doesn't know we've stopped "CQB" practice...

[dbateman]

But that's still inconsistent. "In CQB training it is necessary..." just says I can break the rules. You've decided that it's OK to break the rules for some things but not for others. Personally, I fail to see how it's safe to point a SIRT at someone in a force on force scenario but then unsafe to do so during some other training exercise. The SIRT doesn't become more dangerous; it doesn't know we've stopped "CQB" practice...

I am not braking any safety rule.

If I am holding a pistol and pointing it at you my intention is to shoot you, you are my target.

I am not braking a safety rule because I want to shoot you.

If I am pointing a real firearm at you I am not braking a safety rule I want to shoot you, that is my intention.

If I am pointing a plastic pistol at you during training my intention is the same. You are my target, I am training you how to deal with an armed opponent and I am also training myself on a live target.

Now on the other hand if I take some new shooter and start waving my blue plastic gun around and pointing at people and sweeping myself and the student because it's only a toy so who cares I am teaching them to do the same with a real firearm.

However if I emphasise the importance of muzzle control and trigger finger Discipline right from the start it is a lot easier for the student to remember once the real guns come out.

[ToddG]

If I am pointing a plastic pistol at you during training my intention is the same. You are my target, I am training you how to deal with an armed opponent and I am also training myself on a live target.

But I'm not actually someone you want to shoot. So you can accept it's not a gun when you are pretending I'm a bad guy, but can't accept it when you stop pretending?

Now on the other hand if I take some new shooter and start waving my blue plastic gun around and pointing at people and sweeping myself and the student because it's only a toy so who cares I am teaching them to do the same with a real firearm.

Except I haven't seen that translate into actual practice. Like I said, I wave a SIRT around in class like it's... well, like it's not a gun. Because it's not. I get permission from students and then use them as targets for demos, etc. I've never once accidentally asked a student to walk down range and be a target for a live fire demo. I've never had a student whip his gun out and wave it around dangerously with the excuse, but teacher did it! It just doesn't happen.

If you want to use a SIRT or Ring's gun as a safety training device I totally get that. LE agencies do things like that all the time, issuing everyone a Ring's or ASP gun and telling them to treat it like the real thing. No objection from me... that is one way to use those tools. But there are other ways, too.

You might as well say never point your finger at someone you don't want to destroy. Is it dangerous to point my finger? No. And it's not dangerous to point the solid plastic gun-lookalike, either.