Tactical Reload Merits?

[CZ52GUY]

Smoke

1) My understanding is that under stress, fine motor skill degradation is consistently taught as a risk. I guess the continued debate is whether training mitigates that since the proficient "rapid reloader", regardless of method, would be assumed to have stored that as a subconscious as opposed to conscious act (where fine motor skill degradation would likely have most impact).

2) I hear ya, but as a Risk Management lead (I'm typecast ), I also expect Murphy may arrive. Now there are a couple of schools of thought on that...Archie raises legitimate points re: Marksmanship vs. Reloading skills as a priority for risk mitigation. In any event, my expectation is that you need to:
- bring enough skill and perform to that skill level
- bring enough gun
- bring enough ammo'
- bring some luck (or Providential protection) OR BOTH!

3) A speed reload is fast...and the odds are in your favor if you are in a statistically correct fight, no argument.

4) Agreement except the idea of retention is for the ammo', a bad mag' isn't assumed, albeit possible.

5) No argument about doing what works for ya

6) The speed vs. total ammo' capacity tradeoff is one everyone would have to make

7) Stubborn, nah...just firm in one's convictions .

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[CZ52GUY]

Archie

No argument that Marksmanship exceeds Reloading in training order of presidence. However, I'm not sure one has to choose between them.

30 targets in a single string seems like either an extreme "skill test" or more of to the point of faustulus, a "recreational" stage.

Sounds like a great time for a "full cap waiver" to the IDPA rules .


Re: COM hits = imposed lull

I guess in many cases it comes down to expectations of how a confrontation may present itself. I think many shooters mentally prepare for a carry type scenario (many IDPA stages attempt to simulate this situation). I'd expect most carry scenarios would be focused on 1-2 BG's, perhaps armed with blunt object or edged weapon...firearm on BG is possible, but not necessarily thinking Riot or SHTF attack of the Zombies. Home Defense scenarios most often focus on 1-2 BG's in house where conventional wisdom would probably mitigate need for protracted fight where handgun reloads might come into play.

This is just CZ52GUY's perspective, but my intent is to train beyond statistical correctness. I view firearm proficiency as a martial art, and desire to learn the various techniques and gain a level of competence with each technique I encounter. Again, the decision as to when to apply what technique is subject to further review, especially as opportunities for formal training present themselves. I don't intend to dismiss the various approaches to rapid reload technique based on playing the odds as to whether I'll ever need it. I figure for me...better to know it and not need it than need it and not be able to perform it.

Another way of saying it, will I every wish I didn't learn to TacR? I doubt it.

Is it likely that I will ever get into a protracted fight that would require more than 16-rds of .40S&W? Probably not. But I desire to prepare myself beyond what may be likely. What's the saying? Train hard, fight easy? Something like that...

No intent to disparage those with different perspectives...I've enjoyed the discussion and have a much better understanding of why the debate continues .

Again, thanks to all who chimed in...I've learned a lot.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[Archie]

Faustulus

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve shot in ‘combat’ matches wherein the competitor had to knock down thirty targets. Thirty? What is this supposed to simulate, or what does this teach?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fun?

Okay, I'll buy that. But don't confuse that "fun" with any form of reality. I object to "fun" matches that impose faux-tactical rules of action.

CZ, I agree about the training concept. Train hard, work easy; whatever the question at hand. Now for the philosophical question: Is a "combat" or "action pistol" match training or skill evaluation?

In my mind, if it's a training excercise, then fine, string out as many targets as pleases. Bear in mind this is how a match turns into an equipment test rather than a shooter test.

If, however, the match is intended to test and evaluate the ability of the shooter, then I feel the stages should reflect that concept. Each stage should test either a) a specific skill (precision shooting, multiple targets, rapid acquisition) or a specific, plausable scenario. Every stage should not be a test of reloading ability, or juggling ability.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Archie

Probably a good topic for a separate thread (e.g. components of an ideal IDPA match).

Agreed that not all stages should be "spray and pray"... Rapid Reloads (regardless of method) need not be included in every stage...realism vs. skill tests (I think at least one stage should include a skill test of some sort)...I'd like to see at least one "short to the point 'statistically correct' stage"...

If somebody starts an "ideal stage mix for IDPA thread"...I'd bite into that discussion...even as a newbie.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[Correia]

Archie, I've said this a thousand times, but I'll say it again. If you feel that the stage design at your local club sucks, get yourself elected to be match director and design better ones. Designing a hundred COFs a year is a serious pain in the rear. If you make them too realistic, nobody comes back. If you make them too hard, too easy, too fast, too slow, too many rounds, too few rounds, too "tactical" too "gamey", too many targets, not enough targets, too much movement, not enough movement, you name it you ain't going to make somebody happy. So please feel free to volunteer as a match director. It is loads of fun.

If all of my matches consisted of one or maybe two badguy targets shot at 7 feet once or twice, how many of my shooters would you expect to come back for the next match. You have to balance a very fine line of entertainment, realism, challenge, practice, and fun.

As for teaching correct tactics, I bet I couldn't get ten people on this board to agree on a set of shooting doctrine, let alone the proper response in a certain scenario.

Sorry to go off, but I've heard some version of these complaints just about daily since I starting modding the competition forum. Seriously, it is easy to complain about unrealistic stages, but it is a real chore to design good ones.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Correia

I understand that course design can be a thankless job. However, for purposes of discussion on a board, I think it's useful for IDPA shooters to brainstorm ideas.

I'd be thrilled with a set of strings within a stage that were short and to the point.

A 2-shot stage, you are right...not much to generate interest.

4 or 5 1,2,3 shot strings within a statistically correct mindset stage...that seems useful, doable from a layout perspective, a challenge, and something I think many shooters would enjoy. You could even set up 2 basic scenarios...then vary it with draw from concealment, dominant hand only...weak hand only...from low/high ready (make it more of a HD than carry scenaro perhaps)...lots of good stuff could be done with small shot # strings. Some variation which makes the shooter deal with friendlies...short range precision hostage rescue...and/or a good situation to limit the walkthrough description to throw in a shoot-no-shoot decision...swap a BG for GG between strings? Short strings would go faster...score faster...so some amount of mid stage course adjustment (one-for-one switch)...might be practical?

To your point, anyone can criticize...it's easy to throw stones...agreed 100% on that...but it's also easy sometimes to accuse of stone throwing...throw the constructive baby out with the critical bathwater...just a newbie's perspective...full of idealism, interest, excitement...the wear and tear hasn't set in yet .

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[faustulus]

But don't confuse that "fun" with any form of reality.

Ok. but don't confuse games with any form of reality.

Train hard, work easy; whatever the question at hand. Now for the philosophical question: Is a "combat" or "action pistol" match training or skill evaluation?

Oh you post-socratics it's always gotta be a dicotomy to you guys. of course you realize my answer to that question is 'fun' as well.

To me these are just games (I can tell by the general lack of returned fire) Do the develop skills, yes but track would probably be more useful for life skills.

Finally would someone please tell me what constitutes an equipment race? I always thought of it as always buying new equipment to keep up with the competition, but everyone I know has been shoothing the same gun for ten years. so maybe my definition is off.

Training is too much like work, fine if you are going into combat, but chances are we won't need these skills. I think it is important to make the game fun, then people will want to play and shoot more often. If concessions are made for the sake of fun so be it. I would rather shoot a 18 round 'aliens invade while you are watching signs stage' than 'here are two bad guys draw and engage each one twice'

both are needed, but you have got to give the people a reason to get out of bed and spend their day with your range. matches cost money and it is up to match directors (thankless job, blamed if they go wrong almost no credit if they go right) to make sure they get their money's worth.

of course that could just be me

 

[CZ52GUY]

Run-on post warning

I enjoy IDPA so far, and I expect I will continue to.

But if absolute realism was the goal, then the "equipment race" restrictions would not be designed as a playing field leveling constraint.

You can reasonably put many "non-compliant" accessories on a practical carry gun. IDPA felt like they wanted to draw the line somewhere...it's their game...I can live within their rules a couple of times a month for the pleasure of competing.

Restricting full caps does not add to realism. To the contrary, it diminishes the legitimate trade-offs one generally has to make between per-round stopping power and added firepower. But, it does make for similar conditions for competitors to shoot within for the sake of the game. Again, I can live with that a couple times a month to get the chance to play their game.

In the end, IDPA is a game...I think a terrific game.

I think you can get great practical value from it depending on your mind set.

I think you can have a nice mix of "space invaders stages" and "statistically correct" strings combined to give you a 8-12 shot stage. I like the idea of at least one "skills" stage thrown in also.

As faustulus wisely pointed out, it doesn't have to be an either or proposition. I think it can be both.

My club allows members to practice on the IDPA range so regardless of formal match course design, I intend to develop a # of practice routines that mix various elements and will include some more practical strings which are not constrained by official IDPA rules. I'll use some of my non-compliant pieces and/or accessories (including full caps) from time to time.

Not everyone has this opportunity, so I can see the frustration. I think IDPA would do well to consider some constructive feedback as "add-ons" to the existing structure. An "unlimited division" might be fun. At the local club level, one could consider conducting less formal "unsactioned events" to provide opportunity to explore some ideas that might be useful to pass along to IDPA Board.

I think that in the end, while there is some grousing that is unavoidable (and some folks aren't happy unless they are miserable), there is also opportunity for creativity. If it weren't for folks like Cooper and Chapman...many would still be shooting the "FBI crouch" style. There's nothing wrong with questioning a premise...asking why, and offering constructive feedback...but it should be constructive, and not every suggestion will be implemented. Perhaps none will be...maybe Bill and Ken and the rest of the gang think they have it all figured out.

That's fine too...IDPA came into being because a # of practical shooters thought there was a need for it.

Maybe another group will come forward based on perceived limitations within IDPA? IPSC still lives...IDPA seems to thrive...GSSF has a growing folllowing...I think they would remain if another format for combat shooting competition were to be spawned.

Until then, IDPA is what it is...we live within its construct, and get the most benefit from it we can.

Regardless, it's better than not having any opportunity to compete which is what many sportshooters world-wide are threatened with, or have already realized.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[OF]

Good discussion!

Experience shows that the tacload is almost always going to be slower than the RWR. And while stowing the mag is certainly one of the hard parts, the mag change at the gun in the tacload has it's fair share of complexity as well - complexity that the RWR does not have. If you need to move out from cover (as in stage 3, string 2 of the classifier), you can (according to the game rules) reach the point where it is legal to move earlier with a tacload than an RWR. Other than that specific game scenario, I don't see where the tacload would be preferrable to a RWR.

At our club, we are trying for as much a 'freestyle' design as possible, and we have decided (as a stage design issue) that any madatory tacload/RWR stages will be in two strings with the reload off the clock. As per the rules, a shooter is free to use any legal reload during the stage. A RWR makes a good reload if you're moving along a lengthy wall, for instance, from one position to another.

As this discussion pertains to the CCW-er or civilian police, I think the tacload and RWR are certainly good skills to have in your toolbox, but in 'Real Life (tm)' you'd probably be better served just stuffing a new mag in that gun and forgetting the old one. Then after the gun was full again and you have assessed the situation and determined there was time, retreive the other magazine. The full gun is far more important than hanging on to the extra stored rounds. So fill the gun first, then store the dropped mag if you have the opportunity and situational awareness to completely understand the situation and make the decision that you can expend the extra time/brain power to keep those rounds for later.

The percentage chance that you will be in a gunfight in your lifetime is infinitesimal. The percentage of those who will be in a gunfight will need more than a few rounds is infinitesimal again. As far as methods of reloading your gun, the tacload and RWR add complexity, time and greatly increase the potential for disaster and have very low potential utility.

If your gun is empty or getting there: get the gun full as fast and as sure as you can, then see what's going on. If it's a 'lull' (whatever that is), pick up your dropped mag and store it for later. But that 'lull', IMHO, is not likely to be something you can determine with certainty. So I'd put a premium on getting the gun topped off, and place keeping the extra rounds way down there on the priority totem pole.

But as you said, IDPA is IDPA and we play IDPA by the IDPA rules and enoy it. So there it is.

- Gabe

 

[CZ52GUY]

Thanks Gabe!

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[faustulus]

I agree good discussion, it is so much more fun to talk to guys on this board as opposed to some of the others out there. Amazing how people can disagree on subjects without reverting to third-grade name calling.

a 'lull' (whatever that is)

you'll know it when it happens, there will be flashing blue lights and other guys with guns.

 

[CZ52GUY]

re:lull

My perception...and I could be wrong, is that the "carry scenarios" may indeed call into question the probability of a lull in any real world gun fight. However, if you read the "armed citizen" accounts in publications like America's First Freedom, it seems like more and more you are hearing about HG's deployed in "home defense scenarios".

In those accounts, you do hear of multiple engagements with multiple armed attackers both within and outside of a domecile. Unfortunately, you sometimes hear of attacker(s) initially being driven off and returning for more later.

While I concur with what GRD said about the laws of probability, I also mentioned above that I'm a "type cast" Risk Management lead for project work. We assess risks not only based on probability, but impact if realized. It's the impact part of the equation that makes me diligently practice rapid reload techniques. While the vast majority of scenarios may not call for any reload, because I'm a "type cast" Risk Management lead, I will continue to diligently prepare for BOTH the statistically correct and statistically improbable scenarios...the reason being, that the impact of being unprepared in either case, would be devastating.

Now does the amount of emphasis IDPA stages place on rapid reloads (regardless of method) align well with the statistical probability one will need to execute a rapid reload? Probably not. If you look at the stage 3 portion of the classifier, would you always choose to execute a TacR or RWR at 20-yds after 6 rounds if engaged with multiple armed assailants? I'm not sure I would...especially if I was carrying full caps. I'm also not sure I'd leave cover and advance to get closer to them...exposing my hide in the process...again, it's a game.

What IDPA does do, is provide a format where rapid reload practice (again, regardless of method) is emphasized to the point where you need to be able to do it if you want to be successful in the game. It helps add something to the toolbox that might have been avoided otherwise. In that respect, I think it's a good thing.

The flip side, I think some may try to substitute IDPA for formal tactical training guidance which is probably unwise. I intend to pursue both avenues, and not confuse the game with real life, or vice versa...but to get as much practical value and enjoyment as I can in the process.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[OF]

I will continue to diligently prepare for BOTH the statistically correct and statistically improbable scenarios...the reason being, that the impact of being unprepared in either case, would be devastating.

Well put. This is, indeed, why we carry at all! Statistically, we aren't likely going to need that gun, and it's a fairly burdensome burden when you think about it. The problem is, if we do need it and are found without it, we're pretty well screwed. My standard response to people who ask why I carry a gun (not that I advertise it) is "In case I run into anyone needs shootin'!" If you run into someone who needs shootin', and you don't have a gun, what are you going to do? As to preparing for all scenarios - it's the best idea without a doubt. But even so, you are going to have to make some time-management decisions and rank your skills in some kind of priority re: how much time to devote to a specific 'toolbox skill'. So here we have two skills (RWR, tacload) that we've decided are low on the priority totem-pole as far as training-time-spent for real-life encounters, yet need to be honed to a fine edge for the 'game' of IDPA. Just an example of one of the many reasons why I tell people to think of practical shooting (incl. IDPA) as a training aid, and not training.

While I concur with what GRD said about the laws of probability...

My point about probability was to show why I feel that if you are going to reload with retention it is best to divide the reload into two parts: the reload, and then the retention part after the gun is ready for action fully. If the statistical probability showed that you were likely to need the extra ammo, I'd think it would make sense to include that ammo retention in your standard reload procedure. Seeing as how it is such a rare event (which is a subset of another extremely rare event), it makes more sense to me to just get the gun ready first, with the minimum of hassle and potential for mistake, and only then to add the 'retention' procedure into the equation after you have a ready weapon. Both the tacload and the RWR procedures place retaining the ammo on an equal (or higher) priority with reloading the gun. I don't think the two things deserve equal priority.

Now does the amount of emphasis IDPA stages place on rapid reloads (regardless of method) align well with the statistical probability one will need to execute a rapid reload? Probably not.

And the emphasis on the tacload/RWR specifically is waaay out of proportion. But that's life.

I think some may try to substitute IDPA for formal tactical training guidance which is probably unwise.

You are 100% on this one, and it is, unfortunately, very common. I'll paste in here a paragraph I wrote for the FAQ page of our website, which I think came out pretty well:

Q: I took a Basic Pistol class and thought that IDPA would be a great way to learn some more practical defense-oriented skills. Should I sign up?
A: While the emphasis in IDPA competition is to 'simulate' possible defensive scenarios, and many of the Safety Officers and Staff at our events are certified self-defense instructors in their own right, IDPA is just a game. Participation in the practical shooting sports will most certainly help you to become a better shooter, but it is not defensive training. Some of the skills you will use may be applicable to actual life-threatening encounters, but many are not. We will make no distinction between what is and is not an appropriate life-saving skill or tactic at our matches or related classes. We strongly encourage you to seek professional, competent outside instruction if you own or carry a pistol for defense of yourself and/or others. You could think of IDPA (or any practical shooting sport, for that matter) as a training aid as opposed to actual training. That said, as Brian Enos puts it: "If I had to save myself or someone else from drowning, I'd rather be an Olympic swimmer."

I intend to pursue both avenues, and not confuse the game with real life, or vice versa...but to get as much practical value and enjoyment as I can in the process.

And this attitude will ensure you maximize both the practical value and enjoyment. This understanding is a key to getting the maximum out of this sport. Maximum value...and maximum addiction.

- Gabe

 

[Smoke]

Everybody read what Gabe wrote above....then read it again!

Well said.

Smoke

 

[CZ52GUY]

Everybody read what Gabe wrote above....then read it again!

Well said.

Agreed!!

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

CZ52'