"There's no such thing as combat shooting"

[Kleanbore]

I might not say this right but 90% of Police experience has nothing to do shooting people.

Yep.

It has to do with paying attention to your surroundings....with reading the people...with recognizing pre-assaultive indicators...with understanding that while any place can be dangerous there are certain places that are consistently dangerous and that you need to be on your game in those locations.

That experience is very relevant

Yes. Civilian defensive training should cover those things.

What I was trying to point out is that an actual shooting incident associated with the pursuit and apprehension of a suspect will differ in several important ways from an incident involving the mugging or robbery of a civilian.

Thanks for the additional discussion.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

I am sure you have. This is for the same reason those "meat targets" often look so ravaged, but when you shoot the same round into something like a full sized hog or human chest cavity, things look very different, much more subdued, sort of like the difference between shooting a 12 oz can of water versus shooting a 55 gallon drum of water. The smaller targets are much more dynamic.

I have shot living hogs with the same bullets that blew 5" holes in "meat targets" only to have it punch a 1/2"-3/4" max width permanent wound channel through the hogs.

-----------------------------------------

Y'all are talking about experienced expert instruction. Can y'all remember when it was cool to have a shooting instructor that "had seen the white elephant." Yep, 1 event was enough to be an 'experienced' gun fighter, not 100 gunfights, not 75 or 50, not 30, 20, 10, or 5, but 1 and you had seen that proverbial white elephant.

Most of the experts with high gun battle counts that are into double digits or even possibly triple digits likely did not get that experience in typical civilian self defense shootings. Chances are that they were in full battle rattle with a team of fellow combatants using rules of engagement unlike what any normal civilian would use.

I don't know about y'all, but just because I have had some instruction and managed to fix some plumbing leaks doesn't make me an experienced plumber, despite have some experience plumbing. I have been in class with more people who have been involved in non-military/leo self defense shootings than instructors who have been in non-military/leo self defense shootings.

 

[shafter]

Most of the experts with high gun battle counts that are into double digits or even possibly triple digits likely did not get that experience in typical civilian self defense shootings. Chances are that they were in full battle rattle with a team of fellow combatants using rules of engagement unlike what any normal civilian would use.

This is truth.

Whomever anyone learns from, whether it's YouTube footage of actual incidents, or instructors who have some level of experience, it's always important to remember that people can do everything wrong and still prevail for a variety of reasons. We should examine each incident critically and use logic to determine what was done correctly or should have been done correctly.

There's a ton of instructors on the 'gram these days that had alot of experience overseas but they're terrible for civilian application. There's also some that are excellent. By the same token there are some gifts instructors that have never been in a shooting incident yet are well worth learning from.

Don't fall for celebrity.

 

[Old Dog]

There's a ton of instructors on the 'gram these days that had alot of experience overseas but they're terrible for civilian application.

The last SHOT show I attended, I kept running into these guys (and a few posers trying to look like "those guys" -- full-sleeve tats, beards, tight tee-shirts or polos, sunglasses, spouting the slang), lots of ego, lotsa bro-hugs to go around but I couldn't imagine referring someone I liked to pay for training from some of them. Although the cigars and bourbon back in the hotel at night were great. Perhaps some could learn how to detect signs of IEDs along the roadways or call in an airstrike from one of these guys, but handgun training for civilians? Nope.

 

[shafter]

Alot of these trainers are selling an "experience" disguised as training.

 

[Howland937]

Tom Givens and Mas Ayoob have a great deal of experience with civilians who have been in such incidents. Or do you mean some who has been personally in a great number of critical incidents?

If you're asking me, I'm referring to any civilian who's had enough "hands on" experience using deadly force against other civilians to be considered an expert on the matter. If that person did exist, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near them.

 

[GEM]

What constitutes an expert, in many domains in sports, chess, music, etc. it takes thousands of hours to be an expert. Is even shooting 5 people - a rarity outside of war, make one an expert? Such a person probably doesn't exist. That the person is skilled educator of training techniques besides war stories - unlikely.

 

[Kleanbore]

The search for such a person would be a fool’s errand.

 

[Space Ghost]

Didn't really feel like watching a video that was an hr long, but I'll chip in with my experience in so called "combat shooting". I was a pretty good shot having qualified as "expert" every year but twice during 28 years in uniform.
However, 90% of my training was "theory" until I was actually sent into combat. (on 3 separate occasions) There I experience something I had not in all my years of training... genuine fear & rage.
I missed a hell of a lot more than I hit. On the last deployment alone I probably fired over 400 rounds at enemy combatants during the course of 11 months, but can only say with certainty that I took out 6 of the enemy.
All on the same day... all in about 15 very hellish minutes.
Yeah, There where some probables, throughout the year but only those for sure.
The only thing I can say about "combat shooting" is it's either a lot more difficult that everybody thinks it is, or I'm just not all that good at it... but hey... I made it home.

One more thing... You can't shoot back an an IED. That **** still hurts 19 years later...

 

[shafter]

Didn't really feel like watching a video that was an hr long, but I'll chip in with my experience in so called "combat shooting". I was a pretty good shot having qualified as "expert" every year but twice during 28 years in uniform.
However, 90% of my training was "theory" until I was actually sent into combat. (on 3 separate occasions) There I experience something I had not in all my years of training... genuine fear & rage.
I missed a hell of a lot more than I hit. On the last deployment alone I probably fired over 400 rounds at enemy combatants during the course of 11 months, but can only say with certainty that I took out 6 of the enemy.
All on the same day... all in about 15 very hellish minutes.
Yeah, There where some probables, throughout the year but only those for sure.
The only thing I can say about "combat shooting" is it's either a lot more difficult that everybody thinks it is, or I'm just not all that good at it... but hey... I made it home.

One more thing... You can't shoot back an an IED. That **** still hurts 19 years later...

Again, we're probably talking about a very different kind of gunfight than what a civilian would face or even a cop. Military gunfights often involve shooting back at an enemy that's concealed themselves at some distance vs face to face at nearly point blank range or in many instances touching distance.

 

[tarosean]

My 2 cents

Whomever made the claim of spreading your shots have never shot anything but paper

 

[shafter]

The benefit of the internet age is that we don't have to learn at the feet of one guru who has lived seven lifetimes and now sits atop a mountain.

Video footage allows us to learn from a thousand regular people from all walks of life and varying training levels and witness their violent encounters. We can watch and learn what they did right, what they did wrong, what they did wrong and still prevailed and how they did everything right and still lost. Eventually one gets a good idea of what will give them the best chance of surviving and can train to that. One also starts to figure out which training drills resemble real life which ones are meant to look good on the 'gram.

 

[Kleanbore]

Whomever made the claim of spreading your shots have never shot anything but paper

I don't know what that is about.

For future consideration: some of the responses here indicate that may of us are unlikely to sit though a one hour video without having an idea of what's in it. It's provably best to include a synopsis whan posting such links.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

IIRC a number of the Great Shooters of the Past-Ed McGivern, Bill Jordan, Charlie Askins-all emphasized that target shooting is the basis of combat shooting. As Bill Jordan put it. "Speed's fine but accuracy is final.", Ed McGivern was very emphatic that sight alignment, trigger control, etc. were just as critical in rapid fire as in slow.

 

[tarosean]

I don't know what that is about.

I could only stomach a few
Mins. However, they were discussing being able to hit heart, both lungs, head for example.

 

[Tilos]

I find vids of actual "self-defense" to be more interesting and informative than "training" videos.
This site has many, often followed by some analysis.

Active Self Protection

Every single day we post a real defensive encounter caught on camera and perform an after-action report on it for lessons learned. We educate the public on what we see that works and what we see that doesn't in real robberies, muggings, carjackings, and other defensive situations. Our approach...

www.youtube.com

I'm sure most/many have been there before and some have poopooed them or decided the Vids are "not for you".
No need to respond here, I'm not interested in your critique.
I offer this site as another source.
jmo,
Edit: most ad stuff is imbedded and can be skipped over quickly to view the substance.
.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I haven't watched the video, either. Likely won't.

But if "spread your shots" means what I think it means, then the only spread my shots will have is whatever occurs during shooting center of mass.

 

[shafter]

I've often heard it said in training circles, especially some law enforcement circles, that it's desirable to avoid one ragged hole in favor of having one's shots spread out. Their logic is that by spreading out one's shots they are more likely to hit vital areas and have a greater chance of stopping the threat. Usually this is used as cope for poor marksmanship.

It's neither my viewpoint, nor those in the video that this is a good idea.

Accuracy under speed is what wins gunfights and a good way of polishing the fundamentals of fast accuracy is competition.

Basically fundamentals are fundamentals and good shooting is good shooting whether shooting at paper or a threat. This idea of "good enough for 'combat shooting'" is an idea that needs to die.

 

[Kleanbore]

Basically fundamentals are fundamentals and good shooting is good shooting whether shooting at paper or a threat.

Agree--but the objective in bullseye shooting differs greatly from that in defensive shooing, where the balance of speed and precision is of paramount importance.

 

[shafter]

Agree--but the objective in bullseye shooting differs greatly from that in defensive shooing, where the balance of speed and precision is of paramount importance.

That's true but usually when people refer to competition in reference to the relevance to defensive shooting training they are referring to USPSA and such rather than slow fire bullseye.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Those in "training circles", whether law enforcement or not, who spout the desirability of avoiding "one ragged hole in favor of having one's shots spread out" are, themselves, to be avoided.

First and foremost, ones primary goal is to actually HIT your intended target in the first place.

Given the fact that in any given shooting, especially those under stress, the vast majority of shots fired never hit their intended target in the first place, preaching to "spread one's shots out" is lunacy.

NOBODY drills all their shots on a single hole outside the occasionally exceptional competition rifle shooting, where even those typically result in oblong holes. Off the range with pistols under stress and moving targets? No.

You're most likely going to be lucky to hit your target at all, even luckier to hit in a vital place, without expending a fairly significant amount of rounds in the process.

Worry about actually getting your shots on target in the first place. There will be plenty of natural spread all by itself without you having to try to stitch a smiley face of bullet holes across the bad guy's chest.

 

[Jeff White]

Those in "training circles", whether law enforcement or not, who spout the desirability of avoiding "one ragged hole in favor of having one's shots spread out" are, themselves, to be avoided.

Unfortunately there are still a lot of myths in the training community. I was chided by my chief for shooting a perfect score on the absurdly easy State of Illinois LE Qualification Course. "You should always throw one or two out so a perfect score isn't used against you in court if you miss in a gunfight". That was years ago but there are still people spouting that line. In my experience those who advocate "spreading the shots out" are simply trying to cover up their poor marksmanship by making up a "tactical rule of thumb".

 

[shafter]

Unfortunately there are still a lot of myths in the training community. I was chided by my chief for shooting a perfect score on the absurdly easy State of Illinois LE Qualification Course. "You should always throw one or two out so a perfect score isn't used against you in court if you miss in a gunfight". That was years ago but there are still people spouting that line. In my experience those who advocate "spreading the shots out" are simply trying to cover up their poor marksmanship by making up a "tactical rule of thumb".

I've heard that one myself by people who were otherwise pretty competent cops. Never made much sense to me to try to game the qual.

Good shooters I've seen at the Qual courses usually keep them all in one ragged hole out to about the 7-10 yard line. After that it spreads out a bit.

The ones who barely qualify look like they use a shotgun with a wide open choke.

 

[GEM]

I was told to throw some out of center when taking the TX CHL test because in court I will be asked that since I'm such a 'good shot', I should have shot his knees out. The dude who said that said he knew this because he was a 'sniper'.

I've seen people at test who manage to shoot the target next to them or shoot down the cables running the target in an indoor range.

 

[Space Ghost]

Again, we're probably talking about a very different kind of gunfight than what a civilian would face or even a cop. Military gunfights often involve shooting back at an enemy that's concealed themselves at some distance vs face to face at nearly point blank range or in many instances touching distance.

A lot of times, yeah. or shooting back at them as they fire at you when you drive by in a vehicle. When they're hiding, or running, or one or both of you is in a vehicle, it can cause a lot of missing. Even in the same room when you get the crap surprise out of you, but not all military fights are at distance. Sometimes you come out of a room and into a hall (where you just were a couple minutes ago) and bingo... 3 hajis... within bad breath distance.
The yelling starts at the same time the shooting does.

Could just as easily be 3 gang bangers in your house.

Just saying regardless the situation, shooting at people, or getting shot at... is some scary ass ****.
Protecting your family from a violent home invader, law enforcement stopping an offender, a soldier in combat...

1st time, it's scary as hell.
8th time, it's scary as hell.
39th time, it's still scary as hell... you just sorta get use to being scared.