CZ52...
Tactical shooting vs. attire...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What's so un-tactical about being able to hit what you shoot at?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing, as long as we all realize that effectivity against stationary targets that aren't shooting back is a sign that...we are capable of hitting stationary targets that aren't shooting back.
CZ you have to realize that the skills involved in placing a round where it should go is paramount and preceeds all other considerations.
My club has both Bullseye and IDPA programs. While there is some debate about the relative merits of each, I wouldn't say one discipline can claim ultimate superiority over the other.
Been there, done that. I've been shooting bullseye since 1973 or so, and 'free-style combat' since 1974. Long before either IPSC or IDPA. Less rules than either. Bullseye shooters (with some exceptions) transition to 'combat' much faster and with greater sucess than 'combat' shooters pick up bullseye. I would go so far as to say 'combat' shooters are generally much poorer marksmen over all, even in their own discipline. The absolute best general handgun shooters started as bullseye shooters.
I find the Bullseye shooters to be excellent marksman, but that IDPA presents a challenge in that you aren't allowed the luxury of getting the perfect grip, taking the perfect stance, and getting the perfect sight picture. I'm not aware of any rapid reload requirements in Bullseye shooting, or contorting your body behind cover either. Shooting while moving is also something I believe IDPA requires that Bullseye shooting does not.
One trains to acquire a 'perfect grip' while the sidearm is still in the holster; if you don't do that, you're training wrong. Perfect sight picture is acquired instantly. Stance is probably not as important as the rest. The accuracy requirements for self-defense are looser than bullseye.
Looking at real shooting episodes, one sees the absence of the IDPA 'requirements' you list. I've never seen a real life shootout that required a reload; many had no cover to take; and typically movement was futile. Examining the mechanics of gunfights, most were solved by the winner planting him or herself and shooting their opposite. The one exception to this was the Miami FBI shootout, where the officers took cover, and one of the villians found them all and shot them.
The other side of the coin is that I've found that IDPA shooters often fall into the trap of shooting too fast, and missing shots that they should be able to make...-0 is 8" in diameter...even the Head Box is 6" square...most shots in IDPA are taken in the 7-12 yard range...with some extended range shooting thrown in to keep things interesting.
Something about "... can't miss fast enough to win ..." applies in gunfights as well. Perhaps especially.
I think a good Bullseye shooter has the advantage of a solid foundation to build upon...the "Tactical" skills can be learned...fundamental accuracy can be difficult to acquire if you've become accustomed to a "rhythmic cadence"...harder to slow down and become more accurate than to incrementally improve speed.
Yes, and this is the crux of the matter.
Bottom line, the 15 rapid shots to the torso are likely to have the desired effect as much as the single shot to the face.
Absolutely not! I work in an area where I have something on the order of 250 to 600 non-participant bystanders. The more shots fired, the greater the likihood of a miss. I cannot afford to miss, end of that discussion. Whatever happens, if I must shoot, I must deliver one well placed hit. "Collateral Damage" is not a sad posibility, it is unthinkable. Unallowable.
Please note I am not arguing shooting main body mass. I am saying one good hit is more desirable than a volley.
Is there anything "un-tactical" about being able to hit your target? Only if precise conditions and sufficient time are required to do so which exceed that of the threat that may present itself. A fast draw, quick presentation and rapid trigger work won't help either if you can't hit the threat.
Which is exactly my point. Under no circumstances in the 'US law-enforcement/self-defense' scenario may precision be replaced with volume of fire. Not with any legal or moral justification.