"There's no such thing as combat shooting"

[shafter]

Here is an excellent discussion between a couple of exceptional shooters.

The conversation focuses largely on speed vs accuracy and I agree largely with what is stated.

IG live from 11-17-23 with Mike Pannone on “combat” shooting and spreading rounds around. Nonsense

Great talk with Mike Pannone @cttsolutionsllc about “combat shooting” and spreading rounds around. Your accuracy will degrade at the speed of life but your p...

youtu.be

 

[scaatylobo]

Interesting for sure.

My newest addition to my shooting is to shoot the THREAT.

Not just a "target", see a threat cannot afford a miss, or a hit on a hostage.

Yes, I still paper punch with my .22's and a few center fires for amusement.

But try shooting the threat !.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I really hate the term "wound channel" (as repeatedly used in the video) because it's misleading.

For a torso hit to be effective, a handgun bullet has to punch a hole in the heart, a great vessel, or disrupt the upper spinal cord.

"Wound channel" implies the bullet destroys more tissues than it actually does. Elastic soft tissue tissues are simply shoved aside by the passing bullet, incurring little more injury than bruising.

The actual diameter of a "wound channel," created by a handgun bullet penetrating elastic soft tissues" is smaller than the physical diameter of the bullet, because soft tissues stretch and flow around the bullet.

A penetrating handgun bullet creates a wound track, comprised of the permanent cavity and the temporary cavity. Only the permanent cavity, which is the tissues the penetrating bullet comes into direct contact with and crushes, can be relied upon to produce rapid incapacitation.

 

[shafter]

I really hate the term "wound channel" (as repeatedly used in the video) because it's misleading.

For a torso hit to be effective, a handgun bullet has to punch a hole in the heart, a great vessel, or disrupt the upper spinal cord.

"Wound channel" implies the bullet destroys more tissues than it actually does. Elastic soft tissue tissues are simply shoved aside by the passing bullet, incurring little more injury than bruising.

The actual diameter of a "wound channel," created by a handgun bullet penetrating elastic soft tissues" is smaller than the physical diameter of the bullet, because soft tissues stretch and flow around the bullet.

I think it depends on the ammo type. I've seen some wounds where alot of tissue and blood was blown right out the back of the wound.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I think it depends on the ammo type. I've seen some wounds where alot of tissue and blood was blown right out the back of the wound.

Not with handgun bullets in common duty calibers.

When a bullet exits the body, it stretches skin until it tears, usually creating stellate ("star-like") tears in the skin. The flaps of torn skin can be moved back into position and one can observe that very little skin is missing.

 

[shafter]

Not with handgun bullets in common duty calibers.

When a bullet exits the body, it stretches skin until it tears, usually creating stellate ("star-like") tears in the skin. The flaps of torn skin can be moved back into position and one can observe that very little skin is missing.

I've seen it personally with gun shot wounds. One in particular was with a 45 and it blew a canal though a guy's calf.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I've seen it personally with gun shot wounds. One in particular was with a 45 and it blew a canal though a guy's calf.

Yes, the "permanent cavity" of tissue crushed by physical contact with the bullet.

 

[jeepnik]

Wonder how many posters have actually shot at some while being shot at.

I also find that most experts are simply theorists.

 

[scaatylobo]

Wonder how many posters have actually shot at some while being shot at.

I also find that most experts are simply theorists.

And I can testify that being shot at is a religious experience !.

You will become religious if your not.

And as I mentioned,NEVER will you hear any who have been in a confrontation complain their gun was too big, they had too much ammo,they wished they did not have a BUG AND a back up plan.

 

[Kleanbore]

Wonder how many posters have actually shot at some while being shot at.

Very few. Very few LEOs have had that experience.

I also find that most experts are simply theorists.

What does that mean?

 

[Slamfire]

An hour video! Who has the time?

There may not be combat shooting, but there are plenty of "combat games"

 

[Howland937]

What does that mean

Under the impression it refers to the experts' overall lack of experience actually shooting people. So "theorists" is probably accurate, but I don't think the scientific method really applies in this case. I'd be more skeptical of someone who's been involved in enough shootings to prove a repeatable result.

 

[Old Dog]

Wonder how many posters have actually shot at some while being shot at.

I have a bit of experience in that arena, but don't consider myself an "expert." The guy in the video seems to have substantial military background, but little or no combat time, while appearing to have put in a lot more time as an instructor. That's okay.

Personally, I don't feel that someone needs to have been shot at, or have shot at other humans, to be a good instructor, but that's just me.

I also find that most experts are simply theorists

As far as experts go in the real world, most that I know who've been shot at are either dead or totally disassociated with having anything to do with talking about their experiences -- and those that claim to have shot a lot at other humans are often full of crap. The theorists are still out there teaching. The experts are in the bar with a glass of bourbon or at home still trying to relearn how to be with their families.

Nothing wrong with being a theorist.

An hour video! Who has the time?

Yeah, I couldn't get through it myself.

 

[plainsdrifter]

Wonder how many posters have actually shot at some while being shot at.

Absolutely shot at while deer hunting. lol But didn't shoot back as much as I wanted to. The idiots will shoot at anything that moves. Even wearing a red vest. I swear some hunters are color blind.

 

[Kleanbore]

Under the impression it refers to the experts' overall lack of experience actually shooting people.

That may have been what was intended.

So "theorists" is probably accurate,

Not so sure. There are other, better ways of proving or disproving theorems.

I don't think the scientific method really applies in this case. I'd be more skeptical of someone who's been involved in enough shootings to prove a repeatable result.

Right. There are two few data and too many variables. In addition, it is highly unlikely that anyone who has been involved in a real shootout has had either the interest or the wherewithal to measure any of the important attributes necessary to draw meaningful conclusions.

 

[Jeff White]

The vast majority of people who have shot other people have done so as a member of the armed forces and that has very little in common with the kind of experience an armed citizen would face in our society.

 

[jeepnik]

And I can testify that being shot at is a religious experience !.

You will become religious if your not.

And as I mentioned,NEVER will you hear any who have been in a confrontation complain their gun was too big, they had too much ammo,they wished they did not have a BUG AND a back up plan.

No athiests in fox holes.

 

[bearcreek]

I've seen it personally with gun shot wounds. One in particular was with a 45 and it blew a canal though a guy's calf.

Same here. I can attest, from personal observation, that a handgun bullet can damage tissue well beyond that which it physically touches, given the right set of circumstances.

 

[herrwalther]

Personally, I don't feel that someone needs to have been shot at, or have shot at other humans, to be a good instructor, but that's just me.

I believe the better instructors are the ones with that experience. If they have the aptitude for instruction. World renown trainers like Rob Pincus, Mas, and Ken Hackethorne use the "stress" of a timer beep in their training. And that is not real stress to someone who has been in combat. Or even duty use shootings as a law enforcement officer. I have explained it to a couple of trainers I am friends with (usually over bourbons) that there is nothing their timer and a square piece of paper will teach me that I haven't learned in over 200 firefights. But, I understand their limitations too. You cannot stress inoculate a student by having someone shoot back at them in a safe manner. It is largely frowned upon.

 

[Jeff White]

You can’t do stress inoculation training on a shooting range or even in a shoot house or well conducted force on force training. The student always knows deep down inside that they aren’t really in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

The only way to do it outside of actual combat is the way the military and police tactical teams do it. Exercises that place the student in a position where they actually are in physical danger in a controlled environment. Things like confidence courses with high obstacles, the 200 foot night rappel in Ranger school and rappelling and high rope exercises in SWAT training. These training events are the best we can do. When I went to SWAT training back in 1986 there were two days of rope work including a suspension traverse between two radar towers at an abandoned NIKE missile site 90 feet above the ground. Outside of filming an action movie there would be no real world tactical application for that in a SWAT operation. It was there to teach people to perform while in fear.

I don’t know of any shooting/self defense course where a private citizen can get those experiences. Perhaps adventure sports like scuba diving, sky diving (not the carnival ride that tandem jumps are, but real perform on your own free fall parachuting), rock climbing, white water rafting or canoeing. Basically you want to choose an activity that will require you to perform while in danger but in a controlled environment.

I was fortunate enough to experience that training and adventure sports (scuba and skydiving) as a young man. I really don’t have many recommendations for stress inoculation training for those of us getting up there in age who didn’t experience those things when they were young and fit enough.

 

[Old Dog]

I believe the better instructors are the ones with that experience. If they have the aptitude for instruction. World renown trainers like Rob Pincus, Mas, and Ken Hackethorne use the "stress" of a timer beep in their training. And that is not real stress to someone who has been in combat. Or even duty use shootings as a law enforcement officer.

I strongly disagree. Having been in combat might give one a better perspective as far as tactics, and what it's like to have to return aimed fire with bullet (or grenades, rockets or mortar rounds) coming your way. And you cannot possibly impart this experience in a training class to anyone who's never had that experience.

But as far as teaching fundamentals, marksmanship and technique, one needs not to have been in combat to be a great instructor and turn out competent, well-schooled shooters.

My department's absolute worst firearms instructor had been in many firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he was easily frustrated, egotistical, overbearing and impatient. Our best instructor was a sergeant with no military or LE combat or gunfight experience. I fell in-between but considered myself a pretty good instructor.

Plus, people really need to carefully scrutinize the credentials of some of the folks that are setting themselves up as firearms trainers these days. Lots of padded resumes, embellished stories, and quite a bit of outright lies and stolen valor. I like guys like John "Shrek" McPhee, the real deal. Clint Smith is another. John Lovell hits on other aspects of "the way of the gun." Ayoob, with zero gunfights under his belt, is a phenomenal instructor.

 

[herrwalther]

My department's absolute worst firearms instructor had been in many firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he was easily frustrated, egotistical, overbearing and impatient. Our best instructor was a sergeant with no military or LE combat or gunfight experience. I fell in-between but considered myself a pretty good instructor.

Which is why I said, if they have the aptitude for teaching. Many of the people I served in combat with are great at that, but would be terrible choices in training new soldiers. Or teaching instruction on the civilian side. For the very reasons you mentioned. I do not try to stress inoculate my students until much later classes because that anxiety cannot be imparted onto a student in a useful and effective manner in a class room or static range.

 

[2zulu1]

Very few. Very few LEOs have had that experience.

What does that mean?

Very true, but my patrol car had that experience.

 

[Smokin Gator]

A very tiny percentage of shooters have been in a couple hundred firefights or even actual shots fired law enforcement or self defense situations. All tactical training is a compromise.
Not everyone feels stress in the same environments. Public speaking is easy for some people and a panic attack for others. As far as competition goes many veterans and leos that I've talked to said they felt much more stress then they thought they'd feel shooting competition in front of others. It's not tactical training but is shooting, gunhandling practice.

 

[Bruce D Pease]

Very few. Very few LEOs have had that experience.

What does that mean?

Theorists..
have been taught what to do in combat. In actual practice they may or may not react as trained.