Follow on observations "mini rant" ;-)

[SLG]

"On one end of the spectrum there's fighting with open class race guns with hair triggers.

On the other end of the spectrum there's fighting with muskets because "the M4 is a cheater gun".

At the end of the day, the mission defines what's acceptable and should be the thing that rules out the race gun but allows the M4...I just don't think we are clear enough about what the actual requirements of the missions are, and I don't think we're too good deriving explicit gear constraints from them."


Dove wrote the above lines in another thread, and I misplaced them when i first saw them, but now found them again. I think they are worth reading again.

I agree with what he is saying completely. My problem with technological advancement, is that it really needs to offer a superior performance, that still meets or exceeds our current base requirements. Often, we accept the new advancement by relinquishing an older requirement. That may be more accuracy for less reliability. Barrels, sights, even ammo, can all be affected in this way. Even entire guns. Sometimes it's even less accuracy AND less reliability, but a gain in capacity or reload speed or portability. Think certain semi auto sniper rifles. These are just a couple of examples.

The problem can become both better and worse when dealing with handguns. Better, because the guns don't matter very much compared to rifles (for professional level fighting needs - obviously for CCW or uniform/plainclothes Police work, the pistol is extremely important.) Worse because the mission is often less understood than with the long gun. This leads to upgrades that may shine on a course of fire, and may make the user feel much more capable, but actually has no real relevance to what a pistol has to accomplish in a fight.

People easily lose sight of what matters, in all endeavors. Even easier to do so when you don't have any recent relevant experience in the matter. It is my one and only real complaint with competition. Compete long enough, and you will want to be more competitive. It is a natural thing. That will lead you to making decisions about things (techniques, training, equipment) that work better on the range, and worse on the street.

A friend of mine who I also work with is a Master class shooter, and just won a nice state match. He is an excellent shooter, but is also a SWAT guy. Unlike most of the SWAT/comp shooters I know, he is able to keep real world needs separate in his head. He is in the very small minority, from what I have seen. Everyone who wants to be a better shooter should shoot competition. For most people though, if you want to "keep it real", then you need to stop shooting competition once you get what you can out of it.

Anyway, I don't think this is a rant either, just a nod to the guys who teased me about it last time.:-)

These are just my observations, based on my time around the best and worst of our professional fighters/peacekeepers and competitors. I've worked on weapons and equipment design and procurement, and have seen these issues time and time again, with my guys and with other guys. It is human nature. But we still have to fight it, and to do that, you have to recognize that there is an issue.

[BJJ]

Thanks for the early morning wisdom.

Could you describe more specifically how your SWAT/competitor friend maintains a separate mindset for tactical vs competition. Is it mostly just equipment? I feel like one of the most basic examples of competitors forgetting tactical needs is wanting to carry a fiber optic sight on a duty gun. That particular issue has been discussed in depth and I hesitate to mention due to risk of thread drift but, to me, it is one easy example.

[SLG]

BJJ,

I agree about the fiber optic. Since we are talking about sights, one way to keep the range and the street separate is to understand that sights that might be optimized for the range, or a particular type of competition, are often not applicable to carry. My friend understands this, and though he plays with different sights (a little bit) on his comp guns, he maintains night sights on his duty guns.

Another way is how he trains. Splits are great, but extreme accuracy is greater. He trains to a very high accuracy standard, one that *may* lead to a slower winning path in competition, but allows for the level of precision he needs off the range. Too many people seem to care how fast they can hit a fairly large target. As an example, the A zone is ok in width, but way too long/low. More important to know how fast you can hit a realistic target, say a 5" circle (I try not to use too symmetrical a target, but the 5" circle is an easy reference).

There are other areas, and maybe I'll write more in depth about them later, but it's time for breakfast.

[BJJ]

SLG,

Thanks. That's helpful. If you have more to say later, I think this a great topic that could use more discussion.

I like the example of your friend's focus on accuracy instead of splits. I assume he is shooting USPSA and not IDPA.

I think a positive example of using competition correctly is people shooting limited minor with their carry gun ala OrigamiAK and joshs. It forces one to be more accuracy intensive than if for example, OAK, switched from a G34 to a G35 to get more points on hits outside the A zone.

[GJM]

Gamers that maintain a face shooter mindset all shoot minor, to enforce a continued focus on accuracy.

[ST911]

(I try not to use too symmetrical a target, but the 5" circle is an easy reference).

Please say more.

[VolGrad]

For most people though, if you want to "keep it real", then you need to stop shooting competition once you get what you can out of it.

I see where you are going with this statement but will throw out the devil's advocate position that staying in competitive sports can keep your skills sharp due to the stress of the timer and looking like a chump in front of your shooting buddies.

I'm simply stating you might not be "getting" anything more out of competition but remaining in can still help keep you sharp .... especially if you aren't actively training.

[SLG]

Please say more.

I didn't make that part clear, typing too quickly.

When training on the range, I often use targets of convenience, i.e. 3x5 cards, 5x7 cards, 5", 6" and 8" paper plates. These targets are good sizes for various skill building drills, but none of them accurately replicate the vital zone of a person. Duh.

The best targets do not have defined outlines, and are somewhat asymmetrical in shape. I think this does a better job of forcing you to learn where to shoot, rather than just hit a specific size target. I guess you could say that the "convenience targets" are the crawl stage and the more realistic targets are the walk stage. FoF is the run stage (of training). Don't get me started on the flaws that plenty of FoF programs have.

[LSP552]

Experience matters, and most competitive shooters don't point guns at people for a regular basis. I think this matters, a lot. Without experience, priorities can get confused, and it's easy to let winning move to the top of the list.

Completely agree that the mission should drive everything else, and most people probably feel this way. The problem is lots of people have trouble defining what that mission really is.

[GRV]

Sorry, just got back from changing my panties.


One of the things buried in that quote is the trigger issue. I don't think we have a good, parameterized definition of what a "safe" trigger is. Let's leave the droptesting part out of it and just think it terms of ND capability. Some guns claim to achieve this with a certain pull weight. Others rely on a long trigger pull. We have some standards to go off of: 5.5lbs for Glock, 4.5 for locked 1911, etc. but many of these feel as if they've been pulled out of an ass somewhere. In fact, we see federal procurements mandating a specific trigger pull weight range across multiple different trigger types with different characteristics. One might see that as evidence of good testing and constraint setting, but I'm guessing it is instead evidence of coarse-grained guesstimating based on experiences with other products. There doesn't appear to be a standard nor a test for what makes a trigger acceptable.

One possible criterion would be to integrate the pull-weight curve over the travel distance. That would give you the total energy required to pull the trigger. How that interacts with, say, a safety is even more questionable, but one option would be to add the energy required to flick the safety. Still, it's not clear that this is the right metric for comparing what a "safe" Glock is to a "safe" LEM. Maybe it's not force*distance as I've suggested. Maybe it's force*distance^2, or force^2*distance, who knows. So, what I think we really need is some sort of objective test of whether or not a trigger is ND-safe enough for duty use.

I've ranted (ho ho, see what I did there?) about this specific example not because I want to talk about that specifically, but because it illustrates the larger point which is that there are problems like this in tons of aspects of gear and firearms selection. We don't actually know what we want/need. We just pick whatever looks coolest off the shelf, try it, and decide whether or not it has a problem. In the next generation, we ask them to fix what's broken and leave what's fine alone. That's a very practical way of doing things, and I don't mean to detract from it. But, when we cross into the territory of optimizing performance and debating what personal, customized gear is or is not acceptable for the mission, we need to actually define the constraints. One option is just to say: "either it has gone through those generations of pick and choose, trial and error, fix, rinse, repeat, OR it is unacceptable". That is a wise policy for the operator that needs to work in the real, uncertain world. In fact, it is maybe the only policy one should rely on when it all hangs in the balance. You pick the most proven thing you are willing to accept. You accept the devils you know over the devils you don't. Those who do anything else are more likely to get bit bad one day.

However, that approach spares little room for innovation. It is a plan that optimizes short-term performance at the cost of long-term performance. We owe it to ourselves to actually define the mission constraints as best we can, derive gear constraints from them, and use that feedback to design new products which then get tested to shit, and then get the final test in the hands of the necessarily-cautious operator, and then go through the fix-rinse-repeat cycle.