"Going Shooting" vs Defensive Training

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,467
Go to an indoor range and watch the shooters. Most will likely be shooting at 7 yards (police and military handgun training was traditionally done at that distance more than seventy years ago--it had nothing to do with the Tueller drill).

Most will probably be shooting rather slowly and deliberately, with perhaps a one second interval between shots.

The shooters will undoubtedly be concentrating primarily on group size.

That's what I started doing when I stared carrying in 2008. It was little different from what I had done fifty-plus years earlier, except that silhouette targets with scoring areas replaced the old NRA bulls-eye targets.

The gun club brought in some trainers from the Texas Defensive Shooting Association to put on a defensive shooting class. Service-size semi-autos were required, along with OWB holsters.

We shot one bulls-eye target. Then we moved to steel torso targets, three in a row. We were told to shoot at the tree targets as rapidly as we could, while hitting them consistently. They took audio video, and told us to do it again. And again. And again. For the better part of the first day, we did that over and aver again. The goal was to increase rapidity of fire and hit rate. After eight hundred to a thousand rounds each, most of the new students had registered 30+ percentage improvements in each measure.

I had never dreamed of shooting so rapidly. I did not understand the reason, at first. I had never thought about the fact that a fit attacker can cover five yards in one second, and I was not aware that the realities of handgun wounding meant that one might need, say, 2 to 5 hits to stop him.

They went on to add in shooting while moving forward, sideways, and backward.

At the end of the day, I considered myself trained. But these drills still involved shooting at a target in a location which that we already, knew, just like shooting at the target range.

Some time after that, I attended a two-day course with a nationally known defensive shooting trainer. After some excellent classroom lecture sessions, we went out the range.

The range consisted of earthen backstops on three sides. After some preliminary drills to instill the concept of reaching a balance of speed and precision, the real training started.

The student would walk around within the berms, turning in different directions. The instructor would call out something to describe which one of a number of targets represented a threat. Directions and distances varied greatly. Most were well under seven yards away,

The student would look around, determine which target represented the threat, trn toward it, draw while moving off line, and shoot. Sometimes a second target would be called out immediately.

Now, I really considered myself trained.

But--the targets were stationary, and they did not shoot back. And any shoot/no-shoot training was weak at best.

For the last of these, a laser training facility with appropriate scenarios can help a lot.. For moving targets that shoot back, Force on force training with Simunitions or with Airsoft guns can help a lot. I have not done that, because I am no longer sufficiently fit.

The second class described above was useful not only for the shooting, but in what it taught about threats materializing rom different angles. I haven't walked past an alley opening, a dumpster, a parked truck, or a guy standing on the corner with quite the same mindset since that time.

I hope this proves helpful.
 
" Force on force training with Simunitions or with Airsoft guns can help a lot. I have not done that, because I am no longer sufficiently fit."

HUH ?, then what will you do during an actual FORCE on FORCE event .

You really need to take the FoF class and explain to the instructor your level of participation so they can allow you to TRY and see what you will do.

I was at one a few years back,at the age of 72 and I did EXACTLY as I have planned [ taken hostage,feign a heart attack and drop ].and even the instructor was about to call it off as he knew I could actually be really in dire straights.

Happily he let me roll,and yes I got shot = BUT the BG got shot a lot more.

A man's GOT to know his Limitations,and TRAIN accordingly.

And I also learned what the expression " Violence of Action" meant.

Shoot and HIT as many times as that attack requires.

Loved the start of your missive,very insightful.

And sadly FAR too many are legends in their mind & basement games.
 
HUH ?, then what will you do during an actual FORCE on FORCE event .
Survive if you can defeat/stop the attacker, die or be injured if you cannot. Same as in any actual FORCE on FORCE event. Reality doesn't give you a break because you have physical limitations.

When you get in a jam, you do what you can to get out of it--maybe you fail, maybe you succeed. If you succeed, maybe you are injured or suffer some other sort of medical event if you are overstressed by the incident. But you take that and deal with it the best you can after the fact because there was no other option at the time.

On the other hand, Intentionally putting yourself into an optional situation that carries a significant risk of injury or life-threatening medical event (e.g. physically vigorous training for someone who has serious medical limitations) doesn't make sense. You train the best way you can without putting yourself at significant risk. Since the goal of self-defense is to preserve wellbeing and life, it doesn't make sense to go beyond what's prudent from a risk standpoint during training and each person should do the best they can in terms of assessing their own physical limitations when choosing training.
 
All the more reason for folks to get into competitive shooting. Here me out.

Not everyone has access to combative training courses. Competitive shooting options are almost everywhere.

Are they the same thing? Absolutely not. Will getting involved with comp events make you an overall better gun handler/shooter? Most likely if you put in the effort.


Folks should seek out both and do whatever is available to them, preferably both.
 
Survive if you can defeat/stop the attacker, die or be injured if you cannot. Same as in any actual FORCE on FORCE event. Reality doesn't give you a break because you have physical limitations.

When you get in a jam, you do what you can to get out of it--maybe you fail, maybe you succeed. If you succeed, maybe you are injured or suffer some other sort of medical event if you are overstressed by the incident. But you take that and deal with it the best you can after the fact because there was no other option at the time.

On the other hand, Intentionally putting yourself into an optional situation that carries a significant risk of injury or life-threatening medical event (e.g. physically vigorous training for someone who has serious medical limitations) doesn't make sense. You train the best way you can without putting yourself at significant risk. Since the goal of self-defense is to preserve wellbeing and life, it doesn't make sense to go beyond what's prudent from a risk standpoint during training and each person should do the best they can in terms of assessing their own physical limitations when choosing training.


" On the other hand, Intentionally putting yourself into an optional situation that carries a significant risk of injury or life-threatening medical event (e.g. physically vigorous training for someone who has serious medical limitations) doesn't make sense."

Did you actually read my post about taking a course at 72 AFTER explaining my disabilitys to the instructor ?.

I never said to throw yourself into a full on "F o F " scenario without control.

Just know that with NO TRAINING of "F o F" you are looking to fail at a much higher rate than otherwise.
 
Another thought:

I pointed out that except for FoF training, traditional defensive shooting training falls short in some areas;
  • The threats do not move
  • The threats do not shoot back
  • Shoot/no-shoot decision training is weak; that can be addressed in laser training facilities
There's one other thing that deserves some really serious thought: Every shooting facility hat allows the use of live ammunition requires effective backstops. There are no purpose-built backstops around the gas pumps or between your driveway and the front porch, but it is extremely important that we not endanger innocent people behind the threat, or in front of the threats for that matter.

I once stepped into a situation in which a store robbery was about to happen. My location relative to that of the perp and the intended victims put me in jeopardy and dictated intervention if the robbery were to happen.

I looked around, evaluated the physical backstops in the building, and observed who among the customers could move where. I moved to take into account all of those things. My movement the would be robber to bolt out of the store.

Shortly after that happened, I read an account by Kathy Jackson about an outdoor situation in which she had to draw. She said "my immediate thought was 'backstop'...".

this is something we have to handle according to circumstance. I'm not sure how to train for it, except mentally.
 
I never said to throw yourself into a full on "F o F " scenario without control.
I never said you did. Just as I assumed you accurately assessed your abilities and went ahead with FoF training after working with the instructor to deal with your limitations, I also assumed that the other poster accurately assessed their abilities and decided not to go forward.

If, instead of assuming you both accurately assessed your abilities, I assume that one of you was not accurate in their assessments, to which one should I give the benefit of the doubt? Or should I assume that neither one of you can accurately assess your abilities?
 
You fight in the condition you are in with the skills and tools you currently have.

If you get injured in training and you get into the fight of your life tomorrow then you go into that fight injured. If you don't train then you go into that fight untrained.

The key is to engage in realistic training without compromising your fighting condition. Supervised force on force training that integrates multiple skill sets such as shooting, striking, grappling etc is the ultimate in training. Find a trainer who can put you through scenarios and drills that are realistic to your condition and won't further debilitate you further than you already are.
 
All the more reason for folks to get into competitive shooting. Here me out.

Not everyone has access to combative training courses. Competitive shooting options are almost everywhere.

Are they the same thing? Absolutely not. Will getting involved with comp events make you an overall better gun handler/shooter? Most likely if you put in the effort.


Folks should seek out both and do whatever is available to them, preferably both.

Depends on how you do the competition events. I shoot IDPA, but I shoot the courses deliberately and methodically. Running around corners, extending your firearm past walls, and crowding cover are all things that can hurt you in a real world scenario.

Competitive shooting has a real place on learning to shoot fast and accurate, but if you are attending events with real world training in mind, you cannot follow the fastest paths, you need to be strategic in your approach to the game.

Just my opinion….
 
I think IDPA amd USPSA are great for learning skills. Probably without developing bad habits.

There was an officer at one of the matches who told me "if you ever think you know anything about tactics go play paintball with a bunch of 14 year olds."
 
I think IDPA amd USPSA are great for learning skills. Probably without developing bad habits.
One does not want to practice anything that looks like running toward a target, or from one target to another. There may be a few rare real-world situations in which that might be appropriate, but in most, it could undermine a lawful defense of self defense. Good defensive traininf should encourage getting away from the threat.

There was an officer at one of the matches who told me "if you ever think you know anything about tactics go play paintball with a bunch of 14 year olds."
Same issue.

We want to train for defensive tactics only.
 
One does not want to practice anything that looks like running toward a target, or from one target to another. There may be a few rare real-world situations in which that might be appropriate, but in most, it could undermine a lawful defense of self defense. Good defensive traininf should encourage getting away from the threat.

Same issue.

We want to train for defensive tactics only.

Umm, no. We don't ever want to be seen as the person who has picked or started the fight, or failed to attempt to descalate or leave where possible, but once the fight has started we survive by being aggressive, not defensive.
 
I have a great deal of training experience up to very high end FOF. I also have competed for many years in USPSA and IDPA. My thoughts:

1. There comes a time with age that full bore FOF may not work for you. Age is age. I've been hurt a few times. Now, I'm a care taker and I cannot risk being laid up, so I'm not going there. 10 years ago, I could do what I need to do with my arm in a contraption, no more.

2. The gun games are just games and there is a great debate if they will get you KILLED ON DA STREETZ as that argument goes. They make a fetish of speed with unrealistic guns and actions. In USPSA some even promote marginal hits if it saves time. Reloads are planned which probably never happens in real life and partially loaded mags are dropped as rehearsed moves to save time. A good part of the game is the track meet as Kleanbore mentioned. The guns are for the most part unrealistic, never carried and shot from gear that you never wear in real life.

It does give you experience in actually shooting the gun, drawing, acquiring targets, dealing with malfunctions, etc. Tht is good. Much better than the square range. It does give a bit of stress innoculation.

IDPA - used to have some claim to realism but that is fading as the gamers got all excited that the realism aspects like cover led them to lose. The guns started to become game guns also. The track meet becomes predominant. It is slightly more realistic than USPSA. However, it's scenarios are not real BUT you get a touch more realistic gun handling.

Thus, the gun games are good to keep up your gun handling skills but if you have a SD orientation, you need to shoot a realistic gun with realistic gear and not chase nuances of milliseconds. Thus, you don't care if you 'win' in a time, hit factor sense. You can win with half crappy shots vs. some with all good shots who took longer.

You need both realistic SD oriented 'tactical' classes and then shoot the game in fun mode or SD mode.

Last, age does get to you. You can modify what you do, but some experiences will just be remembered history.
 
I never said you did. Just as I assumed you accurately assessed your abilities and went ahead with FoF training after working with the instructor to deal with your limitations, I also assumed that the other poster accurately assessed their abilities and decided not to go forward.

If, instead of assuming you both accurately assessed your abilities, I assume that one of you was not accurate in their assessments, to which one should I give the benefit of the doubt? Or should I assume that neither one of you can accurately assess your abilities?

How about "assume" nothing ?.

Ask away if your curious and I would happily explain my handicaps .

Just passed 75 and hope to go back to the classes and learn more.
 
How about "assume" nothing ?.

Ask away if your curious and I would happily explain my handicaps .
Ok.

1. If that's your recommended approach, you should have taken it instead of assuming the OP wasn't accurately assessing his handicaps and responding without asking for an explanation.

2. I'm not going to assume that everyone is happy to explain their handicaps. Not everyone enjoys, or is willing to discuss their physical shortcomings, and even those who are may have little or no interest in justifying their limitations to others or the nonsense that can lead to. e.g.:
Bob: "I have 3 compressed disks and a bad knee which severely limit what I can do physically."
One-Upper Frank: "Oh yeah, well, I have 5 compressed disks and the excruciating pain makes me scream aloud in agony 24 hrs a day even after taking 10 fentanyls--also, both my hips and one knee are missing so much cartilage I'm now 6 inches shorter on one side and 3" shorter on the other. In spite of that, I still load 16 tons of #9 coal every day and run a marathon every other Tuesday! What's the matter with you? Slacker!"
 
Nope.

Consider the lawful objective. We may not make it immediately necessary to employ deadly force.

Like I said, we don't pick the fight, we avoid, descalate, and leave if possible, but when those options are removed from us we fight. The reason for the fight is defensive but the mechanics of the fight are aggressive. To do otherwise is to get crushed.
 
Like I said, we don't pick the fight, we avoid, descalate, and leave if possible, but when those options are removed from us we fight. The reason for the fight is defensive but the mechanics of the fight are aggressive. To do otherwise is to get crushed.
Our justification for using deadly force extends to defending against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm--one that is happening or is just about to happen. The window of imminence opens and closes and may open again.

If we have to run to a place where we can shoot at someone, the threat is not imminent, though it might have been earlier.

Our objective is not to "take out" the bad guy.

There are a few exceptions, such as defending a family member.

We may not employ deadly force because a fight had commenced. We may not do so because someone has shot at us, though he is a bad guy. We may not employ deadly force because a man who has shot at us may be inclined to do it again.

We don't follow those rules in paintball. If we have good instructors, we won't be allowed to do those things in FoF exercises.
 
My buddy will do rapid fire on steel. He does well too. I go slow for head and heart shots. Sounds like i should work on shooting faster. I do some rapid fire with my AR. Im at the point now i can hit with in a 2 foot radius at 100 yards. With a clay set up. Most of the time i get the clay too.
 
Our justification for using deadly force extends to defending against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm--one that is happening or is just about to happen. The window of imminence opens and closes and may open again.

If we have to run to a place where we can shoot at someone, the threat is not imminent, though it might have been earlier.

Our objective is not to "take out" the bad guy.

There are a few exceptions, such as defending a family member.

We may not employ deadly force because a fight had commenced. We may not do so because someone has shot at us, though he is a bad guy. We may not employ deadly force because a man who has shot at us may be inclined to do it again.

We don't follow those rules in paintball. If we have good instructors, we won't be allowed to do those things in FoF exercises.

That's completely untrue. If someone shoots at you, you move to nearby cover and the threat is still there with a gun in hand looking for you there is absolutely still justification. Likewise if the bad guy has ducked behind some cover and you are out in the open with no way to disengage you would absolutely be wise to use movement to get a clear shot to end the threat.

If the bad guy shoots at you and then drops his gun and flees then you have to let him go. There is no longer an imminent threat.
 
That's completely untrue.
It is very true indeed.

If someone shoots at you, you move to nearby cover and the threat is still there with a gun in hand looking for you there is absolutely still justification. Likewise if the bad guy has ducked behind some cover and you are out in the open with no way to disengage you would absolutely be wise to use movement to get a clear shot to end the threat.
Okay, but--once again, the objective is to defend against an imminent threat--not to "end the threat".

It the threat is still imminent, that's one thing. There may be circumstances in which a man who has threatened with a firearm and who appears to no longer be attacking may well still pose an imminent threat. For example, a suspect who is retreating with his firearm could easily turn very rapidly and shoot again. Shooting would likely be justified. Were he armed with a contact weapon, that would be a different story.

But if a man waves a gun at me or shoots at me and then heads away and may be around a building, I have no business going to "get him". The window of imminence has closed, even though he is still armed. The immediate danger to me has passed. What he might to later is speculative.

That is the problem with comparing competition with defensive shooting. The competitor will try to score hits on the target, but the "reasonable person" will avoid further danger.
 
Go to an indoor range and watch the shooters. Most will likely be shooting at 7 yards (police and military handgun training was traditionally done at that distance more than seventy years ago--it had nothing to do with the Tueller drill).
These guys will be prepared if they are attacked in an indoor range (unless the range officer is on coffee break).
 
Back
Top