Competitive Shooter In SD Shooting

Its YouTube age restricted BS. I don't know how to bypass it.

If you click on the YouTube link and have an account you can watch it.

If anyone has a more friendly link feel free to share.
 
I recall there was a website called BugMeNot that contained credentials to bypass absurd YouTube logins. They know the vast majority of us will not extend the effort to jump through their pointless hoops. Glad to hear the footage was successfully dissected and discussed prior on THR.
 
When I was an active A-level IPSC competitor, there was a lot of noise on the internet about how the shooting "games" taught bad habits that could translate to a disadvantage in a real world defensive incident.

I learned how to shoot while moving, shoot from awkward positions, shoot with my off hand, reload under time pressure, combine accuracy with speed using a major caliber. Did not learn to use cover/concealment. That came from other sources.

Thankfully, I've never had to apply those lessons. I believe I am better prepared than I would be without that experience. I no longer compete, but train regularly.
 
Kleanbore said:
What narrative?

Can't open it. What does it say?
Click to expand...
It's the same one that we argued about back in August. It's from active self protection it's the guy in Brazil who takes on two guys shoots one turns and shoots the other one and then turns back around and shoots the first one two or three more times while he's laying on the ground. Danny picks up the first guy's gun and re-engages the second guy
 
If the training becomes too formalized, the same thing over and over again, then it can breed bad habits. "Games" vs. training.
 
Training to develop the ability to transition quickly, from one target/opponent to another target/opponent, is not exclusive to competitive shooting. On the other hand, on the streets, it is important to continue to assess, as one shoots defensively. Training for some forms of competition can lead to shooting faster than one can consciously assess the need to fire each individual shot. I am not saying that the shooter, in this video, made any errors in assessment, as he was shooting.

Some folks who study such things say that one cannot assess each shot, when firing splits in the low to mid .20ths of a second. I don't think that I can move my aging fingers that fast, anymore, anyway, so am just passing this along, without further comment, with no dog in the hunt.
 
That is a rather big debate and a good point. There are plenty of articles suggesting slower split times for law enforcement and SD in order to evaluate outcomes. In USPSA competition, I've seen folks advocate that more "C" hits at a faster rate is conducive to 'winning'. However, if you look at the C areas towards the sides of the body on the target, they don't seem to be in more effective areas. The throat and head "Cs" are a different matter. If you don't get "Cs", you are shooting too slow or so it is said by some. IDPA had a big brouhaha over increasing the penalties for lesser hits.

A well known trainer argues that we fetishistize time to much and design equipment in matches for millisecond advantages in guns that are not really suitable for carry and with holsters for such. A part of the 'will it get you killed on the street'.

Another argument from the old toot brigade (proudly part of it) is that too much of the time is based on track meet like stages, running in a manner you would never do in real life. CMP is designing a new competition based more on accuracy than track meets. I laugh seeing a old fat guy trying to run to match the young guys.

I just get what I can out of local matches, which is a reasonable draw and hits in a reasonable time with a reasonable carry gun. A fair number of folks do that. I've seen clubs set up more 'realistic matches' with carry guns but some dood always shows up with full competition gear so he can 'win'.
 
BLACKHAWKNJ said:
If the training becomes too formalized, the same thing over and over again, then it can breed bad habits. "Games" vs. training.
Click to expand...

I agree. Slightly lengthy example. Had a buddy that decided he was going to start shooting Revolver Division with me at USPSA matches. He was dead set on beating me, it was a friendly challenge and we had lots of fun taunting each other and shooting matches together. We both practiced frequently but separately due to where we each lived. I practice with a large variety of drills and tried to make them different each week during my weekly practice session. I rarely did the exact same drill again, always change something to keep them fresh and new and challenging. My buddy spent most of his practice time classifier-doping. He would find out what classifier stage (a standard stage used across the sport to rank shooter skill and always setup the exact same way) was coming up at our next match and would set that stage up and practice it over and over and over. After a summer of our friendly challenge I was a B-class revolver shooter (very close to A-class), my friend was a Master class (one level above A) shooter based on classification. Despite that he never beat me at a Match. He would unusually beat me on the classifier stage but all the rest of the stages in the match were stages neither of us had seen before and I almost always beat him on those stages. Most club matches we attended had one classifier and 4-5 regular stages. I really do thing that was in part to my practice not be the same drills and constantly changing things when I was practicing kept me flexible to new challenges while still developing the fundamental skills needed.

Shooting drills are there to practice the fundamental skills, draw, sight picture, trigger control, reloading, malfunction clearing, etc. They are not ways to develop tactics and situation awareness. That said the better and more second nature you are at the fundamentals the more metal capacity you have for tactics and situation awareness. You can't be as situation aware if it takes conscience effort to remember how to grip the handgun or line up the sights, those better be instinctive/second-nature.
 
Jeff White said:
It's the same video we discussed here a few months back where a competitive shooter in Brazil gets in a gunfight in an ally. A search should bring up the thread.
Click to expand...

Also has come up in other threads. It’s the one where I bring up the “time” component and still haven’t wrapped my head around it.

You brought that up on another thread about a week ago. I provided an answer there and it was nothing as simple as "time". The issue there was that the guy couldn't carefully assess the one guy on the ground because he was forced to keep track of a second armed attacker who was essentially behind him when he faced the person on the ground.
Click to expand...

JohnKSa said:
In the specific case you are referring to where you quoted me, the attacker on the ground had a firearm which means that his being on the ground was essentially meaningless in terms of whether he could pose a threat or not. A person with a gun doesn't automatically stop being a threat simply because they fall to the ground. If the defender reasonably believes they are still a threat or are continuing a crime that justifies deadly force then deadly force is still justified.

In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
Two things can be true at the same time. In a real world gunfight, using tactics that are SOP in some competition shooting can be an immensely bad idea. Also, hand-eye coordination and familiarization developed through competition shooting can be very helpful in a gunfight.

Side note. Way too often I see videos of shootings in South America posted, usually involving off duty cops, and a bunch of Americans jump on and voice their opinions about it thinking that American laws apply. The rules are not the same.
 
GEM said:
There are plenty of articles suggesting slower split times for law enforcement and SD in order to evaluate outcomes.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any such articles, but the idea seems worthy of its own discussion and thread.
 
jmorris said:
Also has come up in other threads. It’s the one where I bring up the “time” component and still haven’t wrapped my head around it.
Click to expand...

He was in a different country, under a different legal system and as far as we know he wasn't charged with a crime.

At times like that I quote wisdom from my first platoon sergeant Miller J. Shield Jr.

"Sometimes it just bees like that."
 
Competitive shooting is a game. That doesn't mean that there isn't some overlap. I have seen highly trained individuals from the SOF community not do as well as they thought they might when they start 3 gun, and I have seen high ranked competitors who have never been in a gunfight, or served in the mil or LE. I will definitely say that those who train and compete in realistic forms of competion have a much better skill set than a "casual shooter" who doesn't push him/her self when it comes to efficiently putting rounds on target.
 
As others have said, there is overlap between competitive shooting and training for the real world. I've done both and enjoyed both. Some people play the game for the sake of the game and enjoy it for it's own sake. Nothing wrong with that, but it won't lend itself to good training and tactics. On the other hand, going "by the book" with good tactics will never see you at the top of a match. But if you pay attention in both arenas and glean the good stuff from both, you're probably going to see improvement in your shooting and have a load of fun doing it.
 
It’s the one where I bring up the “time” component and still haven’t wrapped my head around it.
Click to expand...
Time is only ONE of the components. You have to accept that there are other contributing factors before it's going to make sense to you.

Let's try this approach to making it clear that there are more components than just time and also to emphasize what they are. It's inefficient and repetitive, but it makes it harder to look at just one word out of the explanation and helps make all of the factors more obvious.

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

"In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances."

It's important to also note that "the attacker on the ground had a firearm which means that his being on the ground was essentially meaningless in terms of whether he could pose a deadly threat or not".

Time is ONE of several factors that combined to make it reasonable for the defender to re-engage the armed attacker on the ground without stopping in the middle of a gunfight, with no cover, and his back to a second attacker, to do a careful assessment of the condition of the armed attacker on the ground.

Deadly force laws allow a defender to take action to deal with a what a reasonable person would still believe is an armed threat even if that belief turns out to be inaccurate after the forensics experts have spent the time to exhaustively analyze the scene after the fact. He's not required to expose himself to deadly danger by ignoring the other attacker behind him while he carefully analyzes the condition of the attacker on the ground to definitively determine if the attacker is neutralized, playing possum, temporarily stunned, etc.

Does that help? I'm happy to try to clarify further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Chuck Taylor on Competition.
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Old Guy
Old Guy
Bobson
  • Locked
Tactics: Universally Applicable?
2
Replies
34
Views
841
1911 guy
1911 guy
R
  • Locked
A brand new sport and the newest development in competition shooting
Replies
13
Views
1K
Derek Zeanah
Derek Zeanah
Craig_AR
  • Locked
Competition to Supplement Training
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
BCC1
B
P
  • Locked
Idea for a Shooting Competition
2
Replies
31
Views
859
Jon_Snow
J
Back
Top