Reality check: tactical and competition training and mindset.
 

I just wanted to share a great article from retired cool army guy, MSG(R) Paul Howe regarding tactical and competitive instruction. Linky

Here are some notable quotes from the article:

• "Matches will help you control stress, channelize anxiety and nervous energy, so will combat operations. I have shot in both, both are different stresses. Combat will help you control your fear. This fear cannot be replicated in a match."
  
  
• "Problem solving is different for competition and combat. Matches are geared to shoot as fast as you can with minimal use of cover. Combat shooting should teach maximum use of cover and solving one problem at a time."
  
  
• "Further, next time you are at a match, conduct a poll as to how many combat vets, LE or Mil shoot matches. What I mean by combat vets is those who have actually pulled the trigger on another human being. Once you have taken a life, you might realize that IPSC or IPDA is a train that you might not want to ride for one reason or another."
  
  
• "Finally, use IDPA and IPSC as a training vehicle to make you a more technically proficient shooter. But know the difference between tactical and technical."

I've trained with combat vets, the ones who have actually pulled the trigger, and a co-founder of a few national competitions and they pretty much echo what Paul said above. The thinking that matches makes you a proficient defensive shooter is basically false and could get you shot. Yes, you can have the quickest draw stroke and be the fastest shooter yet your could be the first one hit in a gunfight if you aren't using cover to your advantage.

Good stuff and thanks for sharing.

More Paul Howe articles and links to what he recommends are at:

Published Articles

Recommended Reading

Recommended Equipment & Resources

So Combat doesn't teach you everything to be successful at Competition and Competition doesn't teach you everything to be successful in Combat? Well, duh.

This is somewhat related to vetting your instructors as their background reflects on their course curriculum and mindset.

One of the reasons I posted this is that there are a few folks out there that think shooting in competition, as their only training/practice, sets them up for success in a gunfight.

This is a startling and insulting notion for some. Thankfully, most of us here seem to get it, regardless of where exactly we draw the line.

I too have come to the same conclusion that IPSC and IDPA competition training have minimal training value other then reflexing weapons and maintaining muscle memory. However, with that said, competition training on a one way range is a minimal training value when shooters/operators on a two way range will encounter the opposition with automatic weapons, RPG's, IDF and IED's. The other fallacy is that in combat your target will actually present a target for you to shoot at. Several of the principals of Combat marksmanship is that the opposition is: 1. Maneuvering and will not be in the same place; 2. Is trying to engage YOU, 3. Will be presenting minimal mass for you to engage, and 4. When you actually do see your target will only be for a VERY short time. With all of that said, I have attached a URL from a posting from one of my combat buddies, just in case someone thinks of getting COMBAT TRAINING By the crawl - run method instead of the tried and true crawl, walk, fast walk, run method.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=5741

Informative, in that there are folks out there who are going to teach: CQB, CQM, MOUT or SURGICAL SHOOTING SKILLS IN BUILT UP AREAS with out the requisite training or experience.

So, back to original topic, training is good, as long as formal and informal AARs are conducted. A good shooter is COMPELLED to evaluate what has happened so that the shooter can apply what he has learned.

Most of they guys I shoot with are combat vets and are currently active duty LEO and have been involved in OIS's, and I, and they, do know the difference.

In a previous life, I was fortunate to work with the Army AWG and one thing I learned from those irregular thinkers in a regular Army is this. The answer is usually clustered around Maybe or It Depends.

Does Competition breed bad habits that could get you killed in combat? Maybe.
Does Competition enhance your gunhandling skills more than any training session? It depends on what skills you want to practice.
Are there lessons learned on the Competition field that you cannot learn in Training? Probably.

Here's a puzzle for ya.. how do you think the answer would change if you asked someone like Kyle Lamb, Frank Proctor or Brian Searcy? Assuredly, you will get different answers than Howe's. The question may be unanswerable and you have to be comfortable operating in that ambiguity.

That general statement/answer can be applied to almost anything specially in the legal profession. So I agree that there are no absolutes in life and answers depends on ones perspective and life experiences. I just happen to agree with Paul's comments which I have heard from others instructors as well.

BTW, what is Proctor's opinion on this subject?

You can find some of it in his background statement on his website and in his first video that he posted on his YouTube channel. Better yet, email him and he will respond to you with his thoughts. He's very good about that.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wayofthegunpsllc

"I'm a huge fan of competition shooting. It's a great palce to go and , test and evaluate your shooting and SEEING skills. I encourage anyone who carries a gun for a living to go out and compete. You will learn alot from everyone there and get to test yourself on a weekly basis. Competition and training for competition is a great palce to learn how to see and process faster, those thngs will make you a better tactical shooter, plus you'll sharpen your sword so to speak on your shooting skills with a lot of movement involved. Thanks for checking out this video."

Additionally, you can read Searcy's thoughts about it in this article:
http://www.tigerswan.com/downloads/Tigerswan-May09.pdf

And from Kyle DeFoor, you read this article on Jerry Barnhart:
http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/11/ho...rt-2-of-6.html

Sorry about the length and all the hotlinking. I just pulled a Ramzar.

"Matches will help you control stress, channelize anxiety and nervous energy, so will combat operations. I have shot in both, both are different stresses. Combat will help you control your fear. This fear cannot be replicated in a match."

That fear cannot be replicated anywhere...even with "tactical" training. The only way to experience that fear is in combat. So how is any "tactical" school going to realistically address this?

Also, competition is competition. It's a game. But it's a useful game that will make one a better shooter and help one in a shooting scenario. To what degree it helps, however, remains to be seen. I just don't understand how going to a "tactical" school is any better in most regards because you have an instructor telling you what to do, how to do it, how many rounds to fire, etc. How does that prepare one for a real life shooting? I mean this as an honest question, not the usual comp v. tactical baiting.

A lot of times things are taken out of context or paraphrased so linking / referencing the source reduces ambiguities.

Regarding, the subject at hand, I personally think that all types and manners of training are good as long you know what your goals are and know the strengths and weaknesses of the various modes of training.

The question becomes one of "what is it you are trying to accomplish?" ... with lots of confusion being common in discussion on that point. People often think they are talking about the same thing, and they aren't.

For instance: My focus is not "winning" in the sense of scoring points. Neither is it strictly speaking "combat". I am concerned with prevailing in a self-defense incident, which means some combination of not getting badly hurt or killed, perhaps putting a lot of hurt on (or killing) someone else, and hopefully going home that day/night without charges being filed. There are probably others aspects as well.

Being able to shoot well under stress is only part of that problem, unless every self-defense problem requires shooting a gun as its solution.

I think it's undeniable that competition is a tremendously useful tool for gaining/honing skill with a gun. I also think the focus is not defensive in nature, which leads to any number of misunderstandings.

And therein lies the rub. Given my earlier comment regarding confirmation bias and self-validation, most people tend to advocate for whatever they are most comfortable with or whatever holds their own profile in the best light. There is also a tendency to characterize anything "other" as being of less worth or trivial, "obvious", unteachable/unlearn-able, etc. Whether one has spent the last decade in various training classes or at a match every weekend, some level of skill has certainly been attained at something ... and not with out effort. The suggestion that - just perhaps - there is a different way of looking at things is often taken as a personal affront, rather than an invitation to consider another perspective.

Please read the following detailed AAR thread about such a class. It explains the premise, lessons and drills involved.

AAR: Ken Hackathorn 2-Day Advanced Handgun on October 27-28, 2012 in Chino, CA

I do compete as well as take classes. IME, being a competetive person by nature, I find it very difficult to take my focus away from winning: I often catch myself making basic tactical mistakes like not using cover or exposing too much of my body to see all the targets (i.e., not slicing the pie), reloading while moving (or not behind cover) to save time, not scanning after a course of fire, and automatically clearing my firearm after a course of fire. All that to save a second or two.

Although, at last weekend's match I made sure I scanned after the course of fire and even reholstered prior to clearing (due to the holster angle I technically broke the sacred 180* rule, on purpose, oops :43:). Luckily, the RSO was a fellow tac student so he let it slide...

I also shot one stage with taped sights and oh did I get an earfull from the game crowd: "are you crazy, you'll never hit anything without sights...."; oh yeah, watch this! :43: All in all, I do have fun at competitions and I like tha camaraderie and eagerness to help each other out.

Trust me, I'll never say that only competition, or only "tactical" training is the holy grail. Far from it. I just think there are certain things...fear for instance...that people say can't be learned in competition. Well, that's true, but the only way to learn the fear they're speaking of is in combat. That's an admission that there's no way to train for that specific aspect of this discussion.

I hope I'm never involved in a self defense scenario. There's just way too much that can go sideways. I do understand some basics that will help me:
1. Knowing how to shoot fast, accurately, and before/more often than the bad guy is good. Not having to shoot at all is better.
2. Self defense is not combat. I won't have a full chest rig with multiple mags, AR, partner, etc. And I sure as hell won't be doing any room clearing stunts either. A self defense situation will likely involve me, another person(s), my CCW gun, and a short distance with lots of chaos. There are aspects of "tactical" training and competition that will help.
3. Knowing how to shoot and handle targets isn't something that competitors only know how to do within the boundaries of their sport. That's like saying Chuck Liddell only knows how to whoop some *** in an octogon shaped ring with a referee and rules.
4. Don't get shot. If you are trying to win a competition, this isn't an issue. If you're trying to "win" an armed self defense scenario, it is. Keep that in mind when competing.

I get your statement about winning, but when you think about it, you really are trying to win...you're just redefining winning.

But my question still stands: how does having an instructor guide you through a choreographed class realistically prepare one for a self-defense shooting situation? Again, this is an honest question that I'd like to hear addressed.

Ramzar: I'll give that thread a read. Thanks for the link.

Yup, the AAR from Ken Hackathorn's Class and the responses in that thread will answer your question.

The bottom line:

Pulling the trigger a few ten thousand times leaves you better prepared than the gang banger wanna-be holding his Glock with the mag parallel to the ground or his "shotty" at his hip.

It's like debating what's faster - A 650hp Camaro or a 650hp Mustang.

They are both gonna toast the Escalade...

Never underestimate your opponents: them gangbangers do practice their trade and some of them actually have experience in street fights and gun fights.

Usually, the perps initiate the action so you're automatically in reactionary mode. Advantage perp.

That's a really valid question. Obviously Jeff Cooper's Combat Triad comes up which says that mindset is crucial to surviving a gun fight. I would accept a statement that techniques are different between comp and tactical shooting but there is a lot of overlap. A reload is still a reload. Using cover is still using cover.

Going to a tactical school should cover the difference in weapons manipulations but should focus more energy on developing the combat mindset than anything else. Fancy gun handling tends to go down the drain when your heart rate maxes out and fear puts your brain into vapor lock.

A good tactical school will keep the techniques simple and robust so they work under those conditions.

I'm pulling another Ramzar :) and linking to this article as I found it well-versed, nutrient-dense and from a reputable and relevant source.

http://vuurwapenblog.com/2012/07/05/...tion-shooters/

For me, anyways, this is the most important piece:

"The goal of an instructor is to either teach new skills or enhance existing ones. There is much to be learned from sport shooters about how to shoot fast and accurate but it stops there for them. The application of those skills in a combative environment is best taught by those instructors with the appropriate formal training, experience and temperament to articulate the application of the skills or the areas where they do not apply and why."

How do you know what you are doing is relevant to what you want to do? That's the primary purpose of the instructor, assuming that his/her background is important to you and that aligns with your goals. Ultimately, that is the reason why you are paying for someone's expertise.

Force on force with airsoft (with guns that can cause mild pain) helps with some of that. I have taken entry classes with local LE and it does have some fear attached but certainly not the same as combat.

Anyone of you guys up for some shooting this weekend? If not please start another thread or 2 to talk about shooting. It will help you stay alive in a SD situation I am sure. :rolleyes:

I will be at a uspsa match enforcing some more useless skills and bad habits. I will let you all know how it goes. Perhaps I will shoot slow and from cover just to be sure I learn something of value.

I liked the part where Mike Pannone gives advise to the two types of instructors:

I'm still reading some other stuff, but I take issue with the piece you quoted. First off, it mistakenly assumes that competition shooters only know how to apply their skills in the presence of a shot timer. Ill offer the same analogy as before: do you think Chuck Liddell only knows how to whoop *** in an octagonal ring? This is nonsense. Secondly, the only thing that quote really says is that instructors should teach you things and that their credentials are important. How do you know that everything a combat instructor teaches is relevant. Afterall, we're talking self defense, not combat. Thus being a Navy SEAL really isn't all that relevant for such a scenario.

You don't know because it's unanswerable. The only thing answerable is that the instructor chooses from a list of techniques, sources them against their experience, vets them as valid and then dispenses it to you as instruction. So, the only thing that you know as a student is yes, in that arena and with this instructor, that technique is valid. And that's what Pannone is saying, IMO.

Our other option is to just not train at all. If anybody can master that method and still be an ace shot, let me know. Ammo is expensive.:D

Joking aside. I think I understand what CalTeacher is getting at in that one kind of training isn't the same as another and none are exactly like what you'll see in a self defense situation.

That works as a simple logical argument but I feel it is kind of a pointless argument in reality to negate every training option as not relevant. The fact is your fine motor skills go to crap and your ability to think is very impressive either when somebody is shooting at you. It's better to train at SOMETHING even shooting skeet so that you can perform those actions under stress from muscle memory. You won't be inventing new tactics and plans in that moment. You'll be regressing to your lowest level of training.

Maybe IDPA isn't a perfect fit for combat or self defense but if I had to shoot at an IDPA shooter it would be with my rifle - from 800 meters out where I don't have to find out whether his skill set is transferable or not.;)

Yeah, choose an instructor who can teach you things...valid things preferably. I don't see much that is ground breaking there. What do they define as a combative environment? Self defense isn't the same as patrolling the streets of Baghdad with a full combat kit. I think some of these guys are too focused on the use of rifles in combat situations and battlefield tactics, when that would be pretty irrelevant in the face of a car jacking. In this sense, your interpretation of that quote makes sense, but I didn't necessarily interpret it as such.

I just think there's a lot of sneering at the competition shooting community as though their skills only apply to competition. There's a lot of things that one can learn fairly quickly...like use walls to your advantage, don't get shot, and avoid confrontations like the plague. But you can't do that with your shooting ability.

Everything else being equal, I would rather know how to shoot well, than not shoot well.

Keith

In the interest of disclosure, I shoot USPSA, IDPA, and Sporting Clays.

My point is that some training is better than none, but some no single type of training is the end-all-be-all that solely helps one survive a combative environment (whatever that means).

But the comment about shooting at an IDPA shooter with your rifle, though funny, is also what I am talking about. Is that combat? I'm sure there's something tactical about that but has little relevance to surviving an encounter on the streets of the US.

I dont think its hard to find my vids but thats because they involve all shooting and not face time with the camera talking about it. :p

The vids are to watch mistakes and see what how I look after. Its amazing when you think you went fast and then watch it back and keep wondering why it took so long to reload, move, etc.

Ain't that the truth!

And remember, one can shoot competitively and practice using cover and even shoot from concealment. In fact that's the beauty of competition.

I think if more people got into competition shooting (in any of its many varieties) they wouldn't be so quick to try to point out flaws...they'd probably even have some fun!

I have a great respect for competition shooting, and there are some great shots out there who do so with speed. I also believe that when someone has done both competition and a actual shoot they can voice that there is a clear difference between competition and the real thing.

Great thread guys Thanks for sharing!

On the eve of Thanksgiving I want to thank everyone who has helped me learn and love this activity of “Shooting”

Shooters, I follow this quote:
“Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless(for you), and add what is specifically your own.”
― Bruce Lee

I'm a Practical shooter AKA competition shooter. IPSC/USPSA, IDPA and (now starting)Multi-3Gun.

As a NRA instructor, my job is to Teach the basic knowledge, skills, and attitude for owning and operating a pistol safely and introduce people to my USPSA Clubs.
This thread prompts me to share due to a few observations. What I see now is a lot of this type of thinking:
• Ford vs. Chevy
• PC vs. Apple
• My fighting style is better than your style.

Since my forte is IPSC/USPSA style shooting, our more advanced classes at the club consist of shooting techniques we have learned and proven over the years of IPSC. Key word is SHOOTING , nothing about tactics or fighting mindset. So I sought out more information for personal enrichment and attended a Defensive course and I learned many techniques I have never performed. IE: Shooting from Supine position, one hand reload, etc. In fact, I noticed many drills performed in class are IPSC drills, which I definitely admired. I will continue to seek more training to become a well-rounded shooter the way I see fit. I too seek after instructors, who have the experience what they are teach. But I also take into context my lifestyle. I’m not a soldier, LEO or private security. In fact, I’m a desk jockey with a unique weekend hobby/ passion. I choose to train how I may use the skills. I’m very unlikely will be Kitted up ready for battle so my goal is after skill, not necessarily based on gear.

In our classes we/I have been asked about the defensive aspect of shooting, I advise with research, a shooter will find the right instructor or training group that will fill their needs. I promote other types of shooting also, NRA, Steel Challenge anything that have to do pulling the trigger.

My most adamant requirement for a new to shooting person is always establish good shooting fundamentals, just like the martial arts. Proficiency in shooting comes through practice of fundamentals, there are no shortcuts. No quick techniques to mask the lack of skill.

IPSC Motto : DVC/ Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas (Accuracy, Power, Speed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_shooting (Not the best place for references, but it is accurate)

Excerpt :
************************************************** ********Origins
Practical shooting evolved from experimentation with handguns used for self-defense. The researchers were an international group of private individuals, law enforcement officers, and military people generally operating independently of each other, challenging the then-accepted standards of technique, training practices, and equipment. The work was, for the most part, conducted for their own purposes without official sanction. Even so, what they learned has had a great impact on police and military training forever.[citation needed]
Competition had begun with the leather slap quick draw events of the 1950s, which had grown out of America's love affair with the TV westerns of that era. However, many wished for a forum that would more directly test the results of the experimentation that had been going on at the Bear Valley Gunslingers at Big Bear Lake, California and many other places. Competitions were set up to test what had been learned, and they soon grew into a distinct sport, requiring competitors to deal with constantly changing scenarios.
Organizations
In 1976, an international group of enthusiasts, interested in what had become known as "practical shooting", met in Columbia, Missouri.[1] From that meeting came the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). In 1984, the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) was incorporated as the US Region of IPSC. After many years of established IPSC competition, some shooters, including some of the original founders, became dissatisfied with IPSC, as more specialized equipment was allegedly required to remain competitive. The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) was formed in 1996 with the aim of returning to the defensive pistol roots of practical shooting. Soon after this split, the USPSA devised a series of competition "divisions" with varying limits on type and modification of equipment, including a "Production" division with rules similar to the IDPA's regulations. Today USPSA and IDPA matches are two of the most popular forums of practical handgun shooting in the United States, with more than 17,500 and 11,000 members respectively.
************************************************** ************************************************** **************
You will notice PRACTICAL SHOOTING was the beginning of defensive shooting.

The “Thumbs forward” grip that we all know and love is not new, in fact it started from 2 USPSA Grand Masters in the early 80’s , Brian Enos and Rob Leatham.

I laughed when I read references the grip as “Magpul grip” but that’s not the point. As passionate individuals, we yearn to evolve and improve, so we adopt what works. Todays’ training techniques has a lot to be thankful for practical shooting. So what is surprising to me is the separation, segregation alienation shooting styles.

“When pure knuckles meet pure flesh, there is nothing purer than that” - Ed Parker, American Kenpo Founder

In shooting context, Putting effective hits on target. (Period)

Just as Bruce Lee did, he cross trained. Learned different arts, picked techniques he liked and made it is own.

I agree that time and experience has evolved different methodologies which I embrace due to changing times, just like evolution of martial arts. Lest we not forget the roots of defensive shooting , Practical Shooting.
Well, that was a lot more than 2 cents. Hahah…

I leave this with you, as Americans, we are fortunate to live in a country where we have the right to own/bear arms. Take advantage what is available out there and let’s learn from each other. Our clubs offer an environment where a shooter can practice your skills and apply them. Many shooters do that, draw from concealment, tactical reload, cover, anything you want.

Norco Running Gun and Prado Running Gun are open clubs open to everyone, if you have not tried it, try it and see for yourself and keep and open mind.
Message me if you have any questions.

DVC
Edrick

I like this....

I think that competition, USPSA, IDPA, etc. provides a place where shooters who are only shooting the shooting games or are more concerned with tactical/combat shooting, to regularly get in some trigger time to keep their shooting skills up to a certain level. Depending on where you live, it's easy to be able to shoot with others 3 or 4 times a month, not just plinking at the range. A very small percentage of people who take tactical classes will have weekly access to a range where they can really seriously practice what they've learned. Sure, some people do have access, but a lot more don't. Of course you have to go somewhere else besides the shooting games to learn tactics. Competition is a fun place to practice your gun handling and shooting and feel a little stress shooting in front of others. It's not tactical training. Mark

Excellent blog you linked. I'm starting to look forward to meeting Mike Pannone when he comes out here.

I agree with howe's quotes but not the op's