Claiming "combat accuracy" is an excuse.

[BIGPAPIGREG]

or just run the other way....

 

[StevenC.]

I don't care if they do disagree, but I'm trying hard not to derail your thread too much. I'd get into the difference between the proactive and reactive gunfight. When the sights are needed and when they're not. Accuracy is a great thing to have, but marksmanship skills by themselves will not save the day. I for one to subscribe to any hit on the enemy is good for me and bad for them. I also subscribe to the thought all handgun rounds are under powered ( some more than others ) and what is hit ( read vitals and CNS ) is more important than what caliber. I submit one's gun handling skills and fighting ability are of greater importance to the CHL citizen than marksmanship. After all, in a gunfight it's more important not to get shot than it is to get rounds on target.

It's ok, I suspect that after 14 pages there will be thread drift... or for a new threads to start. My video and this thread is narrowly focused. It's not about ALL gun-fighting.

I'd get into the difference between the proactive and reactive gunfight.

This is a subject I'd like to see spun off for discussion. I sorta shared my thoughts on this general idea in another post. But, please, go start it.

When the sights are needed and when they're not. Accuracy is a great thing to have, but marksmanship skills by themselves will not save the day. I for one to subscribe to any hit on the enemy is good for me and bad for them.

This would also be a good discussion. Though maybe one beat to death. I recall a thread on Glock Talk from more than a decade ago which I believe masticated this topic. It might be beneficial to chew on it some more.

I also subscribe to the thought all handgun rounds are under powered ( some more than others )

True, but... maybe irrelevant when discussing fighting with a handgun? OK, I admit that I simply agree and am no interested in seeing discussion on such an obviously true statement.

...and what is hit ( read vitals and CNS ) is more important than what caliber.

This is absolutely in-line with the thread- that one needs the "accuracy" to make the the heart/CNS or artery/CNS or just CNS hit under stress to end the threat.

So, please share more thoughts in this thread on that subject.

I submit one's gun handling skills and fighting ability are of greater importance to the CHL citizen than marksmanship. After all, in a gunfight it's more important not to get shot than it is to get rounds on target.

Please, share more thoughts on exactly what you mean by "gun handling skills" and "fighting ability." People will read these words and come to a different understanding as to what they mean than what you or I are thinking.

Frequently differences are more about differing understanding of definitions than in disagreement of value. Not always the case, but frequently. I seek clarification before declaring disagreement.

 

[StevenC.]

I would have a hard time arguing with that point of view.

Combat is a whole 'nother world and if you can get your rd into the 'pie plate' (which covers the head or the heart/lungs area) you come away with KIA or a WIA that most likely results in 'incapacitation'. Either one is an acceptable goal. The intensity and environment of combat are HUGE factors. From a raging sand storm to a monsoon in a jungle and everywhere in between; the enviro conditions play a major role...we are all playing the same game; cover and concealment. Factor in the intensity where the combat ratio is not in your favor and suddenly target acquisition is throwing your AR up on a rice paddy berm and pulling the trigger. I have been in a situation where we were completely surrounded by a superior force. I doubt we had any significant KIA/WIA, if any and had we not been completely in the open (rice paddies) and of course so were the bad guys. That resulted more in a stalemate as we did not suffer any KIA/WIA. We may have met a superior force but it was in numbers only, they lacked the CAS trump card.

I often hear "shot placement is king", no, not really, what is king (if there is one) is target acquisition. FNG's frequently want to stick their heads out and if they are lucky, really lucky they may eat some dirt from a miss by the OPFOR, if not the result is a KIA on the bad guy scoreboard. When it comes to TA 'time is of the essence'; you have to acquire and engage before he does. Its not a 'mano a mano' situation as everyone is looking for a target.

This is a great candidate for a new thread. I'd like to see it started so I can share another rice-paddy veterans observations.

 

[TheDan]

come up with a metric or definable way to measure performance with any aspects on that chart

Yeah coming up with an evaluation and scoring system for each skill that would balance against each other would be the difficult part. Travis, if you have something that you'd consider 85% workable I think you should release it. Knowing you it'd be perfectly usable even though it's not good enough for your perfectionism

 

[Ole Cowboy]

This is a great candidate for a new thread. I'd like to see it started so I can share another rice-paddy veterans observations.

Will follow your lead...

 

[breakingcontact]

I used MS Excel 2013. I'm not sure if there's any free programs out there, but I'm sure there has to be.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that you (speaking generally) should be able to come up with a metric or definable way to measure performance with any aspects on that chart (or any others you might decide to add), the more I think you could establish ends of the spectrum (say beginner to expert), and actually record the data to come up with a radar chart that shows how well-rounded you are as a shooter. The shooting tasks are easy, with all of the established performance numbers, scoreable targets, etc. Might be a bit more tricky for trying to measure and put a range to things like manipulation, target discrimination, etc. For things like target discrimination, possibly drills could be developed to have some degree of consistency and ability to establish measurable metrics (whether it be measuring seconds, tenths, or even hundredths of a second response time). So I think Accuracy and Speed would be easy. Manipulation probably wouldn't be too terribly difficult (reloads, malfunction clearance, etc.). Target discrimination a bit more complicated, though probably not too big of a deal to figure something out. Who knows. Might be something fun to play with, just to see what it looks like.

I think the right combination of existing drills could meet this. Good idea.

 

[TheDan]

I think the right combination of existing drills could meet this. Good idea.

There's plenty of drills for the evaluation, but I think scoring the evaluation so that the skills can balance might be tricky. Maybe someone with project management and analysis skills should put together a team to work on it?

 

[Charlie]

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Many who advocate it as some truth serum that exposes what we really need in a fight and that is aggression more than skill and fundamentals are those with whom I take issue.

At the risk of getting OT, I would say I actually have a bit of a different take on that. I know you and I tend to agree much of the time, so this might come as a surprise. Based on all of the academic research, training, personal experience, experiences of some of my students, etc. I have been privilege to, I would actually opine that I think aggression is actually incredibly important, and in some cases I think there is a lot of crime and self defense data/statistics that would support that. It has taken me awhile to come to terms with that topic, as I myself tend to be very OCD about mastery of everything, maintaining a high degree of accountability for performance, etc. The fact remains, untrained people defend themselves every day. Untrained criminals kill people every day. This does not mean either are necessarily doing everything "right", however I think there are a lot of examples (some that are even on video), where aggression and a person's propensity to be able to engage in violence at the drop of a hat to defend themselves is often such a major factor that it sometimes seems to be able to make up for some other deficiencies. While it's certainly no excuse for serious deficiencies, I am reminded of the quote from Patton:

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."

Now, this does not mean that we, as students of the art, would choose to accept lackluster performance or choose to not maintain accountability for our performance or our students' performance. However, I think it does raise the point, what advantage can we gain if we improve our propensity towards an appropriate level of aggression. That is of course considering all of the necessary legal standards of justification. Basically, if you have to go, go BIG and don't be timid.

I have some other thoughts on that particular subject, but I don't want to get too OT. If Jon or anyone wants to start a separate thread on aggression, mindset, etc. I'd be more than happy to throw my 2 cents in the ring. I have far less experience than some others, and have never had to drop the hammer, though I have been in a few fairly unique incidents that I think people might find significant value in hearing about. Such as the time I met a guy that ended up becoming an active shooter...

BTW, great synergy on this thread guys! I really like where this is going.

 

[jrbfishn]

Definately thought provoking.

From an idjit coffeeholic

 

[Ole Cowboy]

"A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."

General George S Patton Jr, nailed it. This often happens and the result is paralysis of analysis...

 

[txinvestigator]

Is this combat accuracy?

10 Yards from Sul. XDs .45 four inch. Press out and fire. I really need to invest in a timer, but I just press as the sites line up.

When I can, I do this kneeling no cover, kneeling around cover, standing left and right with cover.

I did not shoot at the lower right target because I would not in real life take that shot from that distance, with that firearm, unsupported.

 

[StevenC.]

It's hella better shooting than 8" at 6'...

 

[breakingcontact]

Regarding Sig's post im not saying aggression isnt vital but it needs to be based in something and that is training and skill otherwise it is just unfocused aggression or aggression that may put you in a worse position.

I definitely get it though. The military drilled in "violence of action" but also trained us up to focus it.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

The thing is, I've seen a LOT of people take classes, participate in competitions, basically going through the motion of doing most of those things, but that are clearly lacking any real aggression. I know what you're saying, and I agree. Just saying.

One example is, I had the toughest time trying to evoke much of any aggression from one of the local women's shooting groups I used to participate with and coach. This is very evident from the fact that, after roughly 4 years or so since convincing some of them to get out to some IDPA events with us, to date a lot of them are still sitting comfortably right at the absolute back of the pack in terms of stage times. And some of them have now been doing IDPA off and on for a good 3-4 years, as well as taking a number of classes. Heck, some of them have now even taken aerial marksmanship courses, and have experienced shooting a carbine from a freakin helicopter. But still no significant performance improvements last I saw. I guess all I'm getting at is, having one without the other is too limiting, and potentially a liability.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

It's called being a winner.

Winning is a habit - so is losing - and losing is unacceptable.

I'm only halfway joking. Ok, maybe less than halfway.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It's called being a winner.

Winning is a habit - so is losing - and losing is unacceptable.

I'm only halfway joking. Ok, maybe less than halfway.

View attachment 33194

Sprinkles are for winners.....

 

[txinvestigator]

The thing is, I've seen a LOT of people take classes, participate in competitions, basically going through the motion of doing most of those things, but that are clearly lacking any real aggression. I know what you're saying, and I agree. Just saying.

One example is, I had the toughest time trying to evoke much of any aggression from one of the local women's shooting groups I used to participate with and coach. This is very evident from the fact that, after roughly 4 years or so since convincing some of them to get out to some IDPA events with us, to date a lot of them are still sitting comfortably right at the absolute back of the pack in terms of stage times. And some of them have now been doing IDPA off and on for a good 3-4 years, as well as taking a number of classes. Heck, some of them have now even taken aerial marksmanship courses, and have experienced shooting a carbine from a freakin helicopter. But still no significant performance improvements last I saw. I guess all I'm getting at is, having one without the other is too limiting, and potentially a liability.

I observed the same thing in martial arts. They knew the techniques, but when performing forms (katas) they look more like dance, and when they spar there is zero aggression. They would be creamed on the street if assaulted.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

The aggression discussion in the shooting community is fairly prevalent nowadays. Everybody and their brother is teaching "combat mindset". The issue is- it has absolutely nothing to do with proper accuracy.
For Army Special Operators in training, nobody yells at you or attempts to get you to "be aggressive" when teaching marksmanship or fundamentals. the purpose is to build surgical accuracy and clean mechanics to fall back on when stress levels pick up. Not even when CQB begins are you prompted to be aggressive. You are taught to BE DECISIVE. Make a decision and follow through. You are constantly fighting being over-amped, which will help you never. The interesting thing about the Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action is that the "Violence of Action" part does not mean you throw on a war face, flex as hard as you can, or run around screaming. It simply means you decisively engage with overwhelming force that is achieved by accurate firepower. Something to think about in your training.
And on for the "heart" shot placement, my head hurt a little listening to that. Your proper initial point of aim is center, high on the chest. Your preferred target is the spine. If you miss and hit the lung or heart, that's ok but it won't immediately prevent your hostile target from stopping his actions.

 

[breakingcontact]

Ive mentioned that before. You have to do "something". Taking that first step towards action helps a person break the shock of what what is happening around him, the disbelief and confusion. You break that, start doing something and fall back on training. You do have to have good and fast decision making abilities as well. It cannot all be training.