Developing and Assessing Realistic Defensive Shooting Skills

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,313
The shooting segments of most, but not all, CCW courses in my area are conducted in indoor "square" ranges with a backstop, targets at variable ranges, and places to put one's weapons and gear.

After most people start carrying, they go to such places for practice, shooting at a stationary target directly in front of them. They are not allowed to draw from a holster or to shoot while moving.

Unfortunately, that is not a very good way to develop effective defensive shooting skills.

As our member Creaky_Old_Cop put it in another thread, "what is important... is building the ability to do it under fight/flight, movement, pressure, oddball shooting positions, moving, loading, moving to cover, moving away from threats, in other words in and under all the conditions you can replicate as close to a fight as possible. Once you blend those things, you get a really good yardstick on what realistic hit potential will be in a fight".

That is spot on.

It is probably a good idea to add here, for those who are enamored with group size, that it is important to balance speed and precision for the situation at hand. Generally, an area the size of the upper chest area is sufficient in terms of precision. Regarding speed, just think about someone running at you at five meters per second form less than six meters away and factor in that it may take several shots to stop him.

Some years ago, a friend talked me into takin a course at a local facility that was put on by an adjunct of the Texas Defensive Shooting Association. All of the instructors, and there was one for every two students, were ranked competitors in the pistol shooting sports. For those to whom it may matter, the courses conducted at the Bench Rest Rifle Club of S. Louis. It was founded years ago by Col, Tounsebd Whelen, the "dean of American riflemen". I am old enough to remember him. They may still offer such programs from time to time.

After some ilia assessments and introductory demonstrations, we fired very fast at steel plates at seven yards--three of them--with many magazine changes. We were recorded on video. We had a different instructor each time we fired. After expending well over 1,000 rounds, we were are scored for time and hit percentage.

The next day brought running forward, backward, and sideways, and shooing under things. I could not complete that because of heat and humidity.

Man, did I learn a lot!

Or so I thought.

Here are the shortcomings, as I see now:
  1. We knew where the targets were. They were always at the same place.
  2. We fired at those known targets at the signal, having expected that we would be told to do so..
  3. They used a shot timer.
None of those conditions reflects defensive reality very well. But I did learn to shoot very fast, and contrary to what some may profess, that took some doing for all for us.

About three and a half years ago, the I.CE. PDN Combat Focus Shooing tour came here. The instructor was none other than Rob Pincus himself. We met for a couple of long days on the state facilities at Sparta, IL.

From the facility standpoint, the big advantage was the three-sided berm. Students would walk around in it, and then, when told, they would look around, identify which of the several target frames matched a verbal description, turn, move off line, draw while moving, and fire. Distances and direction were different each time. That's whole lot more reflective of reality than those El Presidente drills of my previous class.

Check out the I.C.E. PDN Tour schedule for a class within reasonable driving distance from you. It's well worth it. There are also self study classes with DVDs.

You will not see me at one, though I do recommend it. Balance and stamina problems have conspired to prevent it.

Another suggestion: several of my neighbors have been going to Asymmetric Solutions near Farmington, MO. Great facilities, qualified instructors, and great curricula, One young man came back and told me about using simunitions in parking lot scenarios with decoys, "tail gunners", sneak attackers, and innocent bystanders.

That's known as force on force training, or FoF. Best thing there is, for those who can get to a good on.

Dont ty to contact Asymmetric Solutions right now. All pf their staff and all of their wheeled equipment is in Texas helping out.

There is a gun shop near me with a facility with laser training--they load a scenario, and you might see someone who looks innocent and then turns on you, or a no-shoot drill.

The police use it. The entire view is of one plane. I saw a video of one with walls in three orthogonal planes, in which Rob Pincus happened into into an armed robbery in a shop. Don' discount it. The realism rattled Rob, and he missed a shot or two.

I don't know hare any of those are.
 
At least in my area, this is useful and pretty inexpensive for a training opportunity. Indoors and outdoors.

Find an IDPA club and see where they practice. Join. Our club practices at a local range that the police use also. A large, always freezing cold :) room and we store all sorts of walls, with window cutouts, doors, barriers, on wheels in a supply room there.

We move, shoot from all different positions, around or through cover, draw, reload, etc, all at 10 yrds or less. Alot of fun, lots of feedback, and a bit of stress from being timed and critiqued.

And our practices are less than $20. Bring your own ammo. I just go to train and dont compete, not that it's a bad idea, but I compete in another shooting sport and that's as much as I can afford.

From the thread the OP referenced.
 
Great post OP.

I wouldn't say one form of training is "better" than the other, only that different methods train different attributes.

For example, your course putting 1000rds on steel fast helped train and develop your marksmanship and gun-handling abilities.

The ICE course was better for developing your decision-making and awareness abilities as well as getting good hits in a less defined environment.

Finally, FoF develops your ability to tap into whatever marksmanship skills you have under high stress and can really reinforce decision-making under stress as well.

Problem is only that they typical gun owner doesn't give a flip about training, doesn't think they need it, but will happily spend that $ on yet another gun to sit in the safe...
 
I would say any training is better than no training, which I personally believe is what far more gun owners than we think have (none).

If all one has access to or can afford is a indoor public range, than make the best of it. There's more than most think that one can do at an indoor range, although it's certainly no comparison to moving and shooting on a course. I saw a guy a few months ago moving from side to side in his stall while shooting, doing mag changes and clearance drills. Most ranges around here will also let you draw from the holster after you've shown competence.

But if you have access to and can afford it, for sure do some competitive shooting, FOF or live fire moving and shooting training.
 
Why not standards for trainers???? The individuals qualification to be a trainer and the course content recognized by an accredited organization standard.
 
Why not standards for trainers???? The individuals qualification to be a trainer and the course content recognized by an accredited organization standard.

We already have those. The NRA, the various state law enforcement training boards, the National Tactical Officers Association, the military all have standards and certify trainers. You just have to look and inquire when selecting a trainer.
 
We already have those. The NRA, the various state law enforcement training boards, the National Tactical Officers Association, the military all have standards and certify trainers. You just have to look and inquire when selecting a trainer.
Those organizations mentioned are not under a singular governing body which would set standards for a accreditation. Its a patch work of organizations with different purpose training methodology.
 
Who would fund this singular governing body and who would set the standards? Do you want the government accrediting instructors? Approving curriculums?
 
Those organizations mentioned are not under a singular governing body which would set standards for a accreditation. Its a patch work of organizations with different purpose training methodology.
Why on earth would we ever want such a thing? Who would be able to do it? Training regimens have different purposes. Bullseye, home security, store security, LE, pistol competition....

If you inquire at Asymmetric Solutions, they will tell you of their instructors' qualifications-- and they are not the same. That's for a reason.
 
Kleanbore wrote:
Unfortunately, that is not a very good way to develop effective defensive shooting shills [sic].

I wholeheartedly agree.

Even if we're not going to "shill" for any particular defense shooting technique. :) Sorry, I know it was a typo, but I couldn't resist.

At our family's farm, there are natural ridges forming a "V" so that anything going on in the "V" has a natural backdrop for 75 degrees either side of the shooter. My grandfather, later my father, and now I would go out and plant targets. We use old candidate signs from past elections so they can be easily moved and re-positioned. The trick is that the target was only "valid" if it had a paper target taped to it. Otherwise it is considered a "friendly". If someone else goes out into the woods and places an unknown number of targets in unknown positions, you get a pretty good experience of making a sweep and engaging the "hostile" targets. My grandfather scored me on when I saw the target, how I did shooting at it and whether I got all the "hostiles" and avoided the "friendlies". I was never timed. It was the most realistic training that I have had outside of the Army.
 
Jeff White wrote:
Who would fund this singular governing body and who would set the standards? Do you want the government accrediting instructors? Approving curriculums?

No.

Because if the training is realistic and worthwhile, there should be enough support for the formation of a private governing body who would be paid from a share of the match/training fees paid to local groups that could then sanction local groups, promulgate curriculum and accredit instructors.

If there's not enough interest, then such an organization won't survive.
 
Because if the training is realistic and worthwhile, there should be enough support for the formation of a private governing body who would be paid from a share of the match/training fees paid to local groups that could then sanction local groups, promulgate curriculum and accredit instructors.

The self defense community can't even agree on what skills are appropriate. I think there are too many different aspects to training for self defense to have one governing body. And then you get into the trainers who will claim that they are being stifled by the governing body.

Probably the closest thing to what people are envisioning was an article by Mas Ayoob that I believe was published in American Handgunner back in the late 80s or early 90s about a police department that combined defensive tactics and firearm training into a use of force training unit. I'm not sure how effective it was, I never saw any follow up and it didn't seem to affect how training was conducted in the Midwest. We still had separate instructors for defensive tactics, OC, taser, baton and firearms.

If there's not enough interest, then such an organization won't survive.

Given the small number of people who are actually willing to train, I don't think that any organization like this would be financially viable.
 
The self defense community can't even agree on what skills are appropriate. I think there are too many different aspects to training for self defense to have one governing body. And then you get into the trainers who will claim that they are being stifled by the governing body.
My point is now you can have every Tom - Dick or Harry, and Miss/MRS represent themselves as a trainer.
 
My point is now you can have every Tom - Dick or Harry, and Miss/MRS represent themselves as a trainer.

Why not? Isn't that free enterprise? I've attended plenty of training that was conducted by people who were certified by the military or the state LE Standards and Training Board that was no what it could have been. A certification by a governing body isn't a guarantee that someone can actually teach.

In the case of military members and LE officers there might not be a chance to choose your trainer. But in the private sector one is free to make an educated decision on who to train with. You can read reviews at sites like this and in the press, you can talk to people who have taken the class you are interested in.

I just don't see a certification by a governing body as a guarantee that the instructor actually knows how to teach.
 
I just don't see a certification by a governing body as a guarantee that the instructor actually knows how to teach.
Would you have been happier If I had used other terminology than Governing Body? Probably not! How about Trade Organization. At this point one can't guarantee the validity of instruction by others, other than references.
 
At this point one can't guarantee the validity of instruction by others, other than references.

And you can't guarantee the ability of instructors who have certifications now. I had an "H" additional skill identifier in the Army, they give that to soldiers who successfully complete the Instructors Certification Course. I was also a certified observer/controller for force on force training conducted with MILES gear. I taught tactical rifle and patrol rifle for 2 different police departments. But all of that paper doesn't tell you or anyone that I am a competent instructor. The only way someone would know would be to observe me conducting training, to talk to people I trained or to attend a class I was teaching. The paper that goes with those qualifications is meaningless. Why is it meaningless? Because there are numerous other people with the same credentials who really can't teach.

I just can't see another certification as being any better then the certifications that instructors already have. It's one thing to know a subject well enough to teach it. It's something else altogether to actually be able to impart that knowledge to others. There have been numerous examples in professional sports where top athletes were unsuccessful as coaches.

Any governing body or trade organization that was certifying instructors would have to continually monitor them, audit their classes and not be afraid to pull their certification if they don't meet the standard. We have professional organization and state boards who certify school teacher, yet that doesn't seem to fix the problems with our education system. What makes you think it will take shooting and self defense instruction to a higher level?
 
Any governing body or trade organization that was certifying instructors would have to continually monitor them, audit their classes and not be afraid to pull their certification if they don't meet the standard. We have professional organization and state boards who certify school teacher, yet that doesn't seem to fix the problems with our education system. What makes you think it will take shooting and self defense instruction to a higher level?
If you are satisfied with the status quo of the way instruction is accredited at the present and not open to change that's up to you. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on that subject. I see it differently. End of discussion on my part.
 
Last edited:
Why not? Isn't that free enterprise? I've attended plenty of training that was conducted by people who were certified by the military or the state LE Standards and Training Board that was no what it could have been. A certification by a governing body isn't a guarantee that someone can actually teach.

In the case of military members and LE officers there might not be a chance to choose your trainer. But in the private sector one is free to make an educated decision on who to train with. You can read reviews at sites like this and in the press, you can talk to people who have taken the class you are interested in.

I just don't see a certification by a governing body as a guarantee that the instructor actually knows how to teach.
Wholeheartedly agree with Jeff's post. I've had crappy instructors in both the military and in law enforcement, and I've seen heinous misinformation propagated in classes by "NRA-certified firearms instructors."

You've just gotta do the research, seek credible reviews and immerse yourself in the community before paying your hard-earned bucks ... Courses at places such as Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, Firearms Academy of Seattle, et al, you know you're getting the real deal. Tom Givens (a THR member) is the real deal. Guys such as Ken Hackathorn and Dave Spaulding are still teaching. Rob Pincus teaches some good stuff. Problem is, all these courses get really, really spendy and some are priced out of reach (or out of area) for most folks. Even so, you might find some classes in your local area that offer relevant teaching by knowledgeable folks for a lot less than the nationally-known instructors charge.

Me, I still want to get down to Portland and check out member Strambo's classes ... good force on force training with Simunitions is not only highly instructive, it's great fun and in my opinion is a terrific training aid. No, nothing can really come close to equalling actual military or street combat, but if you're not combining the aerobic component with stress (and the adrenalin rush) and having to evaluate targets at 360 degrees, as Kleanbore notes, you're just not going to be able to develop realistic defensive shooting skills...
 
There are many facets to this but the bottom line is you can't simulate a defensive shooting in circumstances where you are aware that no real danger exists. You either require real world experience or the training has to be set up in such a way that it is an extremely dangerous endeavour because the candidate has to be completely off script.

Range training is useful, no doubt about it. It can prepare you for certain events to an extent. For example, back in 2002 I took various self defense shooting courses in Johannesburg. These course involved pistol, shotgun and rifle. The instructor was a member of the South African Police Service and he had spent a lot of time on 10111 cars. He also had other another job which he did not advertise. This guy was good!

One of the prime concerns in Johannesburg at that time (and even now) was carjacking. Shooting incidents in and around cars were common, and the type of goblin you are dealing with down there will shoot you through the head just to get a car for parts. We had an ENT surgeon shot dead by four goblins as he drove out of the hospital. Several staff members were mugged, carjacked and shot at on the premises and in the vicinity of the hospital!

So the anti-carjacking course was well-subscribed in those days, and when I did the course there were five of us: one radiologist, one orthopaedic surgeon, two paramedics and one radiographer (me). The trainer got a car and put it on the range. Granted, we could only fire in one direction, but the car was placed at various angles on the range throughout the day. Drawing and firing from a holster whilst on the move was a big part of the training.
These were the main areas of training, and what I got out of the course and what I learned:

1) How to rapidly access the gun from a starting position where the gun is in an IWB holster and the seatbelt of the car is on. This was a right hand drive car and the IWB was 3 o'clock for me. There are various difficulties with this, depending on the seatbelt mechanism and how much side bolster the seat has. I found that the speed of the belt retractor influences the timing of how fast you can get that belt off, get to the gun and get out of the car. By the end of the session I was unclipping the belt latch with my left hand, guiding it up to the right corner, then also with the left hand opening the door whilst my right hand went for the gun. I used an extended right thumb to get under the T-shirt, rake the shirt up and get the gun out, which was a Vektor CP1 with no thumb break on the holster. The training was good for learning how to get out of that particular car and present the gun as fast as possible, especially when coming out of the car and then moving and firing towards the rear. The targets were T-shirts on stands placed at various positions behind the vehicle. The drill was done twice: once with driver only and another time with a passenger. There are a lot of distractions depending on who starts firing first, and who gets out the car first. Even subtle things like how the suspension balances out when the passenger gets out first, play a role. Things you wouldn't think of until you try it!

2) Same as above but with targets in front of the car. In this case the first shots were fired from a position where the forearms are supported in the V between the door frame and the windshield frame. That was an interesting experience because the brass from the passenger's gun landed on the roof of the car and then rolled down the windshield, which distracted me. The other thing I noticed was a lot of residue coming into the car and also sound pressure waves reflecting off the inside surface of the windshield towards me. I got scratched forearms because the rubber door seals on the car were old and had a brittle edge. These are all things you have to try before you can work out a strategy to either expect it and accept it or do something to rectify it. For example the seat springs were worn on the driver's side and this created a lot more "dive" when getting out in a hurry. If you aren't used to that it can cause a distraction. When I finished the course I had a large black bruise all down the right thigh because the springs were bottoming out during the drills.

3) Firing across the passenger seat at an assailant approaching from the left. The brass deflects off the inside of the windshield back towards the shooter, and the sound pressure wave inside the car is much more than you would expect. I think without ear protection it is going to result in some measure of hearing loss! Also, it doesn't take a lot of rounds to fill the car with a gunsmoke to the point that it can affect breathing and visibility. Your eye protection may not save you from watering eyes when firing in that enclosed space. Note that we didn't fire through any glass, which would provide its own distraction!

So my point is this: I learned a lot on that course, experienced some new problems and how to minimize them...BUT I was never under any real threat to my life. The best we could do in terms of getting the adrenaline up was to have unscripted occurrences on the range, such as one occasion where I noticed a lot of dust suddenly being kicked up in front of me as I moved to cover from the car. Unexpected boom of a 12 gauge also, which was the instructors way of injecting some spice into it.

He freely admits that there is only one way to put you in the fight or flight mode during training, but it is very dangerous.
One method is to surreptitiously replace the candidates' rounds with blanks and have the vehicle intercepted on the way back from the range by a group of "carjackers" according to a training plan. I don't need to tell you how that could go badly wrong, even if you were sure no candidates had any live rounds on them and you had the road closed for that session. It's a liability issue for a civilian course, maybe more acceptable for SF-type training.

Beyond that method, I don't know how you can simulate a do-or-die scenario...
 
I would like to pull a bit on what strambo said in Post #3: Different training curricula address different things.

First ,there is basic gun-handling--stance, grip, presentation, acquiring the target, sight picture (for when it will be useful), and trigger control. All are in the prerequisite category.

But none of that is sufficient for effective self defense when the balloon goes up, Pressing the trigger while aiming at a target in fron of us at a set distance, if that is all that we do, would not meat my expectations--even if that's what the famed traditional FBI revolver training course for police officers did for us back in the 1960s.

Of course, that's better than noting. But think about it. If a couple of polite smiling fellows have moved, quite lawfully, into close positions near you and then they show their true colors and all hell breaks loose and they charge you, you will need more than the first prerequisite. If you have not yet been to a good defensive pistol course, you can get a very good idea about what we are describing here by watching some of Mike Seeklandae's excellent videos on The Best Defense. These bring out thinned to act decisively and quickly, to move, and to draw and fire rapidly and effectively.

Those last elements--"running the gun", as it were, can be learned in pistol completion. That will also provide the stress of exertion and real time constraints. Good stuff.

But not necessarily sufficient, I think. So far, everything in the foregoing has to do with how to hit a target, or targets, well. Necessary, but not sufficient. There's more to self defense than that.

As strambo opined, the excellent I. C. E. PDN Combat Focus Shooting Course added in the aspects of decision-making and awareness abilities as well as getting good hits in a less defined environment. We did not know in advance what to shoot at or from where, or even if we swould shoot at all.

Better? Yes. And it is as far as I have gone. But there can be more.

Again going back to strambo, FoF develops your ability to tap into whatever marksmanship skills you have under high stress and can really reinforce decision-making under stress as well.

A friend dropped in yesterday to answer some questions about FoF scenarios he went through recently at Asymmetric Solutions near Farmington, MO. One parking lot scenario involved good guys, bad guys acting innocent to distract the defender, armed bad guys just out of sight, and a good guy running up with gun in hand after shots were fired. Plenty of opportunity for disaster. The students learned a great deal. Some of it kept them shaking for a while.

If I were still up to it, I would start figuring out how to avail myself of those skills and that knowledge.
 
Regarding a universal accrediting body for instructors...it wouldn't matter. Not only is it not plausible, but the instructors who checked that box would still run the gamut from total tools to outstanding with everything in between. You'd still have to find someone teaching what you want to train on and check around/research them or just risk it.

Besides, any instructor who carries liability insurance (better be all of them!?), probably needed some sort of recognized instructor credentials to get said insurance. I had to have 3...
 
There are many facets to this but the bottom line is you can't simulate a defensive shooting in circumstances where you are aware that no real danger exists. You either require real world experience or the training has to be set up in such a way that it is an extremely dangerous endeavour because the candidate has to be completely off script.

Range training is useful, no doubt about it. It can prepare you for certain events to an extent. For example, back in 2002 I took various self defense shooting courses in Johannesburg. These course involved pistol, shotgun and rifle. The instructor was a member of the South African Police Service and he had spent a lot of time on 10111 cars. He also had other another job which he did not advertise. This guy was good!

One of the prime concerns in Johannesburg at that time (and even now) was carjacking. Shooting incidents in and around cars were common, and the type of goblin you are dealing with down there will shoot you through the head just to get a car for parts. We had an ENT surgeon shot dead by four goblins as he drove out of the hospital. Several staff members were mugged, carjacked and shot at on the premises and in the vicinity of the hospital!

So the anti-carjacking course was well-subscribed in those days, and when I did the course there were five of us: one radiologist, one orthopaedic surgeon, two paramedics and one radiographer (me). The trainer got a car and put it on the range. Granted, we could only fire in one direction, but the car was placed at various angles on the range throughout the day. Drawing and firing from a holster whilst on the move was a big part of the training.
These were the main areas of training, and what I got out of the course and what I learned:

1) How to rapidly access the gun from a starting position where the gun is in an IWB holster and the seatbelt of the car is on. This was a right hand drive car and the IWB was 3 o'clock for me. There are various difficulties with this, depending on the seatbelt mechanism and how much side bolster the seat has. I found that the speed of the belt retractor influences the timing of how fast you can get that belt off, get to the gun and get out of the car. By the end of the session I was unclipping the belt latch with my left hand, guiding it up to the right corner, then also with the left hand opening the door whilst my right hand went for the gun. I used an extended right thumb to get under the T-shirt, rake the shirt up and get the gun out, which was a Vektor CP1 with no thumb break on the holster. The training was good for learning how to get out of that particular car and present the gun as fast as possible, especially when coming out of the car and then moving and firing towards the rear. The targets were T-shirts on stands placed at various positions behind the vehicle. The drill was done twice: once with driver only and another time with a passenger. There are a lot of distractions depending on who starts firing first, and who gets out the car first. Even subtle things like how the suspension balances out when the passenger gets out first, play a role. Things you wouldn't think of until you try it!

2) Same as above but with targets in front of the car. In this case the first shots were fired from a position where the forearms are supported in the V between the door frame and the windshield frame. That was an interesting experience because the brass from the passenger's gun landed on the roof of the car and then rolled down the windshield, which distracted me. The other thing I noticed was a lot of residue coming into the car and also sound pressure waves reflecting off the inside surface of the windshield towards me. I got scratched forearms because the rubber door seals on the car were old and had a brittle edge. These are all things you have to try before you can work out a strategy to either expect it and accept it or do something to rectify it. For example the seat springs were worn on the driver's side and this created a lot more "dive" when getting out in a hurry. If you aren't used to that it can cause a distraction. When I finished the course I had a large black bruise all down the right thigh because the springs were bottoming out during the drills.

3) Firing across the passenger seat at an assailant approaching from the left. The brass deflects off the inside of the windshield back towards the shooter, and the sound pressure wave inside the car is much more than you would expect. I think without ear protection it is going to result in some measure of hearing loss! Also, it doesn't take a lot of rounds to fill the car with a gunsmoke to the point that it can affect breathing and visibility. Your eye protection may not save you from watering eyes when firing in that enclosed space. Note that we didn't fire through any glass, which would provide its own distraction!

So my point is this: I learned a lot on that course, experienced some new problems and how to minimize them...BUT I was never under any real threat to my life. The best we could do in terms of getting the adrenaline up was to have unscripted occurrences on the range, such as one occasion where I noticed a lot of dust suddenly being kicked up in front of me as I moved to cover from the car. Unexpected boom of a 12 gauge also, which was the instructors way of injecting some spice into it.

He freely admits that there is only one way to put you in the fight or flight mode during training, but it is very dangerous.
One method is to surreptitiously replace the candidates' rounds with blanks and have the vehicle intercepted on the way back from the range by a group of "carjackers" according to a training plan. I don't need to tell you how that could go badly wrong, even if you were sure no candidates had any live rounds on them and you had the road closed for that session. It's a liability issue for a civilian course, maybe more acceptable for SF-type training.

Beyond that method, I don't know how you can simulate a do-or-die scenario...

Thanks Odd Job, for offering information on "Developing and Assessing Realistic Defensive Shooting Skills"

Appreciate the time it took to write it as well.
 
One of the best things to practice at the range is drawing and firing a concealed handgun. Various permutations:

1) support hand is disabled
2) support hand is occupied holding back a door or supporting a person
3) strong hand is disabled. That's quite bad if the gun is IWB 3 o'clock and you want to draw from under a T-shirt with your left. Your first shot may be with an upside down gun if the assailant gets onto you too fast. You can do it with a Vektor because the safety is in the trigger guard.

Not all ranges will let you practice all these options though.
 
I see the idea of a sanctioning or regulating body as impractical for all of the reasons Jeff (and others) suggested, and probably one more: the sheer difficulty in establishing such a thing and getting it to be recognized as the authority. I think the NRA is the most likely entity which could do so, but their efforts there have been not overwhelmingly successful. Ahem...to say the very least.

Some other authority that started up which tried to pull everyone under it's own blanket of leadership would face a long uphill struggle to establish legitimacy. We're a fractious lot, and by the time any such self-proclaimed authority had a few years of gradual acceptance, there'd be spin-offs, off-shoots, and splinters all of whom would proclaim that that organization had it's head up it's derriere for a half-dozen reasons, and that nobody SERIOUS about defensive training would accept their rules and oversight. o_O
 
As for the general question of this thread, I think variety is probably the key for most of us defensive-minded "amateurs."

As we know, sometimes simply being aware and visibly confident/capable is enough to ward off an attack.
Sometimes simply having a gun is enough to deflect a bad situation.
Sometimes one slow, deliberate shot -- however inapt -- is sufficient to end an attack. (Hence all that stuff the NRA publishes in the Armed Citizen column, where granny always saves the homestead by popping an intruder with the single-shot .410 late grandpa left behind in his long-johns drawer.)
Sometimes it's "3 shots, 3 yards, in 3 seconds."
Sometimes it's drawing a weapon and fighting from within a vehicle.
Or it's being grabbed and grappling on the ground with a bad guy trying to take your gun.
Etc.

How much training does it take to successfully respond to any of those things? How many different kinds of training can we get to, and afford? What kinds of training will actually prepare us to handle the widest, most likely, varieties of violent attack?

I've shot practical pistol competitions for a couple of decades. My gun-handling skills and general fluidity of drawing, firing, engaging multiple and moving targets, reloading, firing from retention, etc. are well above whatever the "average" could be though to be. Hey, that's cool. Good for me.

I've attended a variety of carbine training courses, and done enough 2- and 3- gun competition to know that I'm acceptably proficient with those arms, and have been exposed to some pretty interesting techniques for using them in unconventional ways.

But I've also attended a few hand-to-hand (let's call it martial-arts) training events that focused on dealing with weapons and grappling with opponents. And I'll be the first to tell you that what I took away from that is mostly the certain knowledge that I don't have anything near the experience and unconscious command of those skills to apply them to a desperate, real-world, defensive scenario.

And yet, being grabbed and grappled is probably a lot more likely than being accosted from 7 yards away by two or three bad guys all producing weapons -- i.e. the scenario I've set myself up to handle through decades of practice.

Am I more prepared that some hypothetical average gun owner? Oh sure. But that may or may not be nearly sufficient if trouble actually shows up.

So I'm left with the working theory that it's best to get as much varied training as one can get, and then do all one can do to avoid trouble, because when the dice roll, I am not an invincible fighter capable of defeating all threats, simply because I've practiced a lot with my guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top