My thread got toasted.

[Ankeny]

Oh no, three pages of discussions and my IPSC will get you killed thread got toasted. I didn't get to see the last couple of posts, but apparantly some otherwise civil forum members had an adverse reaction so the thread was killed.

Here's what I learned before the thread was double tapped COM. First, even though I have never met a serious student of the shooting sports who actually thinks IPSC is training for a gun fight, I have been told such folks do exist. I can't even begin to relate to that type of thinking. IPSC is a game, period. It isn't training for street level combat.

There also exists a group of shooters who are grounded in the area of tactics and self defense who have the idea that no matter what type of training a person does, if it isn't force on force, or if the trainer hasn't shot for blood, the training is hog wash. They also seem to think the raw pistolcraft an accomplished square range shooter has developed is worthless, or even worse than that, will get you killed. Wow, I can't relate to that type of thinking either.

To me the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the extrtemists from either school agrue more from emotion than from common sense or experience. I wonder, how many of the folks who posted in the deceased thread have seen the "ballon go up" and they are also Master gamers?

Where I was headed with the thread is the notion of transferrable skils. A person can posses a skill set that can be transferred from one area to another as the need arises. Will A.J. Foyt's racing experience have no value or get him killed when he hits a slick spot on the highway while driving the family sedan? Will the hours Lynn Hill (arguably the best rock climber to ever live) spends on the wall during the off season get her killed come spring time? Will an Olympic class swimmer, working as a certified life guard to get through college, be more apt to drown than the life guard who barely passed the physical portion of the exam?

And why does the argument seem to be tactician vs. IPSC gamer instead of picking on the other sports? Suppose we have an accomplished Sporting Clays Shooter who is also a cop. When he grabs the shotgun out of his patrol car is he doomed because bad guys don't wait until you yell "pull" and they for darned sure can't fly? Or how about all those operators and spooks who shoot the International Tactical Rifle Championships at Dave's place? Are they doomed to come back on their shield instead of carrying their shield with pride?

You know what I think the real issue is? I think it's the bad rap both self defense shooting and the games have developed because of extremists in either camp. Some IPSC shooters view the self defense crowd as mall ninjas and tactical wannabes who can't shoot for beans so the wannabes rationalize their superiority by claiming superior tactics, heart, and minset. Some of the serious defensive shooters view IPSC gamers as a bunch of equipment snobs and delusional prima donnas running around in orbit mode hosing everything in sight with a $3000.00 race gun.

Like so many things in life, the truth is in the middle. I encourage people to take the best of all worlds that apply what they learn to their needs and discard what doesn't work. But always keep an open mind and examine things from a perspective of common sense and moderation. You never know when you might have a change of heart and you owe to yourself to be willing to learn and to remain trainable.

Stay shap and shoot straight.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I was actually enjoying the discussion until things got out of control.

While I am not sure which of the groups you identified I belong to, here is my opinion. As far as pure shooting skill as it relates to combat shooting, IPSC has the market cornered. If I was interested in becoming a better shooter, I would seek out an IPSC shooter, in fact I have, several times. Do I think the odd IPSC/IDPA match is detrimental? No. But I do believe a regular emphasis on competition muddies the waters. You can not bring the positive aspects of competition-based training into a real fight without bringing the negatives aspects as well.

Additionally, I believe people greatly overestimate the level of skill required to successfully defend oneself. Too many shooters equate a Master-class rating in IPSC or IDPA with a "blackbelt" in combat shooting. It is just not true.
People were killing other people with firearms for well over 100 years before the advent of IPSC. The Armed Citizen is full of examples of people who were never received any formal training or shot competitively who successfully used their firearms to protect themselves and their families.

In my opinion, a B-class shooter probably has all the skill any normal person will ever need to protect themselves. When your job description involves the counterproliferation of nuclear weapons, then by all means get Rob Leatham to give you some pointers. Just because you have the skill of a B-class shooter does not mean that you have mastered the tactics that will allow you to apply that skill. It is here that IPSC/IDPA come up short and are counterproductive.

People need to evaluate their primary reason for having a firearm. IPSC/IDPA and the defensive use of a handgun are not mutually exclusive nor are they completely complimentary. Again, when you look to transfer the positive aspects of IPSC/IDPA into a gunfight, you a likely to bring the negatives as well.

 

[Ankeny]

I posted this somewhere before, but I'll post it again. I took a competiton shooting class from Ron Avery a couple of years ago. During one of our class discussions we all got to shooting the breeze about the issue of games vs, self defense. One of the guys asked Avery point blank how good a person needed to be to be well equipped for the steet. I figured Avery would give some long winded esoteric reply, but without hesitation he said something to the effect, "B class is the black belt of IPSC. The B class shooter has more than enough skill to survive any armed encounter. After that, you need tactics and a warrior attitude".

Again, when you look to transfer the positive aspects of IPSC/IDPA into a gunfight, you a likely to bring the negatives as well.

I know a lot of people feel that way, but I am one of those guys who honestly believes the gamer aspects of IPSC will go down the toilet when SHTF. I don't think in terms of IPSC off the range and I certainly don't think in terms of IPSC when I change to a higher condition.

The only time I can buy into the notion of IPSC habits screwing a guy over on the street is if the guy believes IPSC is the real deal, has no idea of mindset, and thinks the games are tactics. That poor guy should think about getting a cap with a Raven on the front and forget about going for his B card, lol.

 

[Correia]

It got toasted pretty bad. There was a suicide by moderator and we had to cordon it off to clean up the blood.

 

[Ankeny]

Should we lock this one? If you feel things will just get stirred up again I don't mind if you delete the thread. Frankly, I think folks are burned out and I doubt this thread sees much activity.

Funny thing is, I think for the most part, everyone is on the same page, maybe not totally in agreement, but close, with the exception of guys who are really entrenched one way or the other.

 

[Correia]

No. This thread is fine. Any thread is fine as long as people can discuss things reasonably. Some folks have a hard time with that no matter what the topic is.

 

[Jeff White]

Ankeny,
You didn't miss anything in the last couple of posts. Trust me it was members not taking the high road.

IPSC and IDPA are fun ways to practice fast and accurate shooting. It's a pleasant way to get the required number of correct repetitions in to develop instinctive gunhandling and shooting skills. How much gunhandling is transferable depends on the equipment used.

I think that the extremists on both sides of this argument are looking for something more then you can get from either gaming or training. Let's face it, we live in a very safe society. There aren't many opportunities for people to really test themselves. I think that Blackhawk6's example of people looking at an IPSC Masters rating as a Black Belt in combat shooting is right on. It's only natural for people to want to excell and be the best they can be at any activity they participate in.

People take justifyable pride in the labels we give them for succeeding, Master Shooter, Black Belt, Ranger...etc. But being a master shooter doesn't automatically make you the master gunfighter, and black belts from all martial arts disciplines lose real fights and I'll bet Blackhawk6 has met a tabbed Ranger or two in his career who didn't quite measure up to the standards you would think he should. I know that I met a couple over 29 years. The fact is that all those labels are only predictors of how a person may do in a real fight. There have been plenty of stellar performers on the training field who couldn't quite cut it when it was for real, and plenty of people who seemed to barely get by in training who somehow excelled when they were called upon to perform in the big show.

In my very limited experience I've found that clear minds and maturity are more valuable then an IPSC masters rating or certificates from every top trainer in the industry. I'd pick someone with average skills, but had proven himself under pressure over the unknown with a masters ticket or impressive shooting school/tactical training resume to back me up every time.

Jeff

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I'll bet Blackhawk6 has met a tabbed Ranger or two in his career who didn't quite measure up to the standards you would think he should.

More than one or two.

 

[BigG]

A lot of it is advertising, in my opinion: if somebody has something to sell, like a range instructor, or is emotionally invested, like a dedicated competitor, they will tend to denigrate the other guy's area. It's really better to disregard, like a Ford v. Chevy argument. We call such things a urination contest.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

The guys who can hold their mud, well enough to win lots of matches, are going to be tough fighters, if they go at it right.

Not necessarily.

Force on force doesn't mean jack.

Yes, it does.

The punks you have to deal with, when it's for real, don't have a clue, even about the proper use of cover, much less working as a team.

Some do, some don't.

 

[pax]

Ankeny ~

I mostly agree with you. The problem is in the extremes. People tend to overstate their views and then, being human, when they're called on it, most people who have overstated something tend to get pretty violently defensive about it. Repeat the conversation a few times, and both ends are soon polarized beyond all hope of reconciliation.

I think you're right on with the concept of transferable skills. Learning how to shoot fast and straight under the mild stress of competition definitely should cause the shooter to be able to shoot fast and straight under other kinds of stress. And that's a Good Thing.

However.

You talked a little bit about an Olympic swimmer working as a life guard. The problem with that is that the Olympic swimmer is going to do things a lifeguard shouldn't do -- and he'll be tempted to try them precisely because he's a good swimmer. He'll think that he can just swim out and pull someone ashore. The fact is, in lifeguard work, the last thing you ever want to do is get in the water with a panicked, frantic person who is drowning. A good swimmer who hasn't been trained as a lifeguard is often tempted to do just that, and thus such folks get involved in double drownings depressingly often. A poor swimmer who hasn't been trained as a lifeguard already knows the first rule of lifeguarding (don't swim if you don't have to!). Since they can't swim out, they're more likely to try reaching in, throwing a rope or float, or rowing a boat out to save the drowning person. Those solutions to the problem are all better than swimming out -- no matter how good the swimmer is.

All of that is only an analogy, but I think it's a telling one. In those situations where saving a drowning person really requires good swimming skills, the Olympic swimmer is going to do better than the poor swimmer. But when there's more to the job than that, then even the Olympic swimmer needs more than his excellent swimming skills in order to do the job -- and in those situations, not having the extra knowledge as well means that his excellent swimming skill is almost a liability.

When the job of survival in a deadly encounter really requires only the ability to shoot fast and straight, the competition shooter is going to do better than someone who has never competed or who isn't as good a shooter. But when there's more to the job than that, then even the most highly rated competition shooter is going to need more than his excellent shooting skills in order to do the job. If that happens and he hasn't learned the other things he should have learned, the confidence born of years of shooting competitions can tempt the good shooter to try things a poor shooter never would have tried -- and that the good shooter shouldn't have tried, either.

pax

 

[Ryder]

Ankeny

I read through that whole thread just to get to the last post and find the thread locked. I hate it when that happens!

To me the truth is somewhere in the middle

Ain't that the truth.

We are all different. "The game" interests me but organized particpation doesn't. Training interests me but being formally trained doesn't. Mastering all kinds of difficult activities interest me but being a copy of somebody else just cramps my style. It's too limiting.

I discovered the brianenos forum after seeing your original post and have read about half of the archives now. There is a lot in his philosphy which explains what I have been experiencing in my own combat training. He has some great quotes there that would probably sound like gibberish to many here. This ISPC thing is turning into a great resource for me. Not only does it confirm and reinforce some of my own discoveries but it's shed light on which deficiencies I need to focus on (must reload faster!).

It is in the middle. I peel away what isn't practical without pre-judgemental bias. It's a given that not everyone can do that so don't let it bother you. I compete against myself as that's where the game for self-improvement exists. I care not for bragging rights but I am not beyond showing appreciation so thanks for sharing the videos.

Hopefully I didn't take so long to type this up that the thread has become locked. I hate it when that happens too.

 

[OF]

It was actually me, pax, who brought up the olympic swimmer bit, and I was just quoting Brian Enos. I'll repost the paragraph from our IDPA club's FAQ page for those who don't know what pax is talking about:

Q: I took a Basic Pistol class and thought that IDPA would be a great way to learn some more practical defense-oriented skills. Should I sign up?
A: While the emphasis in IDPA competition is to 'simulate' possible defensive scenarios, and many of the Safety Officers and Staff at our events are certified self-defense instructors in their own right, IDPA is just a game. Participation in the practical shooting sports will most certainly help you to become a better shooter, but it is not defensive training. Some of the skills you will use may be applicable to actual life-threatening encounters, but many are not. We will make no distinction between what is and is not an appropriate life-saving skill or tactic at our matches or related classes. We strongly encourage you to seek professional, competent outside instruction if you own or carry a pistol for defense of yourself and/or others. You could think of IDPA (or any practical shooting sport, for that matter) as a training aid as opposed to actual training. That said, as Brian Enos puts it: "If I had to save myself or someone else from drowning, I'd rather be an Olympic swimmer."

I think the quote, at least to me, means that having a high degree of proficiency in a skill that is related to the task at hand is desirable. If your purpose is to become a lifeguard, train to be a lifeguard. A side-career as an olympic swimmer is only going to help you in your lifeguard duties.

Similarly, if gunfighting is your goal, train to be a gunfighter. If you just happen to be able to put an 'M' next to your name when you sign-in on match day, how is that a negative?

Answer: it's not.

I agree completely, pax, that for someone to be just an olympic swimmer (M-class shooter) and think that they are now qualified to fight with a handgun is folly - and could be disasterous.

But that's just the point: no one is saying that IPSC is gunfight training - exactly the opposite. The point is that high-speed gunhandling skills are an important part of learning to defend yourself and there is no better cauldron producing high-speed gunhandlers than IPSC/USPSA.

In stark defiance of the chest-thumping crowd's mindless gobbling, there exists a very real and productive symbiosis between the self-defense community and the gaming community. Pistol handling techniques developed and tested in the gaming community find their way into modern gunfighting doctrine. 3-gun us now starting to have similar influence. One needs only to take a look at Jerry Barnhart or Rob Leatham's upcoming class schedule to see that many of the high-speed low-drag BTDT's in our finest fighting units seem to think these guys have something valuable that they want to know.

After their class with Barhart, do you think the SEALs are better or worse gunfighters?

- Gabe

PS: I have adjusted my ignore list to avoid temptation to 'get into it' with any more chest-thumpers. My apologies to all if I contributed to the loss of the original thread, which I believe I did.

 

[Shootin' Buddy]

After their class with Barhart, do you think the SEALs are better or worse gunfighters?

That depends entirely on what Barhart teaches them. I’ll admit that If he teaches them pure IPSC stuff, then they’ll be worse gun fighters. After crawling 3 and half miles through snake infested swampland to get to the fight, they’ll be highly disappointed when they slap for the fast draw only to find that somewhere back in the dank mud pits their Les Baer Special had fallen out of their Safariland 009 holster.

But I doubt that pure IPSC stuff is what he taught them. I’m sure that he taught techniques that crossover.

What is one very important skill that an Olympic swimmer needs to have to win a metal? He needs to be able to swim. What is one very important skill a lifeguard needs to have to keep from drowning? He needs to be able to swim. While a lifeguard may not need to shave off every ounce of body hair and the Olympic swimmer may not need to practice first aid, there are exercises that they both hold in common.

Likewise, to be successful in IPSC one must be able to move quickly and still shoot accurately. Same goes for handgun combat. In a gun fight you don’t want to just stand there and you certainly don’t want to miss. The interesting thing is that most of the skills taught by handgun combat experts today have come from the lessons learned in the shooting sports, and they’ve been good lessons. Our combat skills are better because of it.

 

[pax]

Gabe ~

Agree with you and Shootin' Buddy that there is a very real and productive symbiosis between the two.

Agree with the following statement, but with a caveat.

But that's just the point: no one is saying that IPSC is gunfight training - exactly the opposite.

Few people are saying that. But plenty of people are acting like it. I think that is one of the things the anti-IPSC crowd is reacting to.

There are a lot more people who only game than there are people who game and also take other types of training. If you asked these folks, most of them would agree that gaming by itself isn't enough; but by their behavior they show that they don't really believe it. If they believed it, they'd be working on the other parts of the equation too.

I think there are a lot of good swimmers out there who act as though, having learned to swim, they know how to be lifeguards.

Anyway, that brings me back to my original post: people tend to overstate their case, and then get all hot'n'bothered trying to defend more territory than they should've claimed in the first place. So let me make it plain that I'm very emphatically not against IPSC or IDPA,though in re-reading this post it could sound as though I am. I think they're both good venues to learn how to shoot fast and straight, and that being able to shoot fast and straight is a Good Thing.

My only contention is that there are too many people who act as though they believe IPSC teaches good gunfight tactics, or that compteting in IDPA is all you need to learn the basics of surviving an armed encounter. If all you ever do is compete, and all you ever learn is from competition, you're missing an important part of the equation.

(And let me add as an aside that I'm pretty sure anyone posting here in the Strategies & Tactics forum has probably already got a pretty good grasp of what else he needs to learn besides how to shoot straight. But THR folks aren't average joes.)

pax

I've interviewed a lot of people after gunfights, both police and private citizens. Not one has ever said to me, "You know, I wish I hadn't shot quite so well." -- Tom Givens

 

[Island Beretta]

Hey, Ron, I was wondering where the thread went!! Sorry

Anyway, I think we all are saying the same thing..how we get there is where we have the difference. If I may try to just summarise:

1. IPSC training can enhance gunhandling skills. There are however some skills imparted that are best left on the range.
2. Gunhandling skills aren't the only skills needed in a gunfight.
3. Balance your training and don't get locked into anything, there is always more to learn, or as would be said in Zen, there is always more East to go..

Enjoy the rest of your day, gentle people and see ya' later.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff makes no claims as to being a gunfighter, but he has had the unusual experience of knowing three individuals who were, and one was alleged to have a double-digit killing score.

So far as I know, none of them ever fired a shot in any combat game what so ever, and one was dedicated to the proposition that he’d never go near one.

All of them were practiced shots. In any circumstances they could and did place their shots “on target†exactly where they intended. Two out of the three practiced and trained extensively. The third did also, but not as much. All of them agreed on the following points.

Handgun fights occur at close (and sometimes very close) range. They are sometimes unexpected, and your adversary will likely initiate the action. You therefore are in a position of responding to an attack that is underway.

Given this ... One must respond quickly to survive, but at the same time they must hit the assailant instantly in a way that will disable him, and end the attack.

The successful gunfighter is one that combines training skills with a mental mind-set and attitude that results in controlling themselves and the situation, even under the most adverse conditions. Easy to say, but not so easy too do.

I would opine that some of the drills that competition shooters practice (speed reloading, clearing jams, drawing and presenting the weapon, etc.) might be useful in real life. Most of the courses of fire aren’t. More often then not the competitor must engage too many target at too long a distance. Good fun yes, but nothing more.

 

[Correia]

But Old Fuff, if engageing ten targets out to twenty yards fast becomes easy, engageing that one target at conversational distance will become a whole lot easier.

 

[Old Fuff]

Easier perhaps, but if you engage a target at say 7 to 12 feet the same way you would at 20 yards, the time expired may be close to the same, and under some circumstances the difference could be fatal,

I don't claim to be an expert in this, but my advisors were, shall I say, "very experienced," and they all survived several or more encounters.

 

[Correia]

Old Fuff, but we don't do that. Close up we go even faster.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think Old Fuff hit it. I have shot many IDPA stages where I thought, if this were real life we'd all be dead.
That said, practice in fast draw, fast acqusiition of target and use of cover and movement are always good things. Familiarity with your equipment is always a good thing (and I suspect here is where a lot of anti-IPSC stuff comes from--do you really carry your $3k race gun daily?). Figuring out what a doable shot is from one that is likely to go astray and kill someone else is always a good thing.
But someone would have to be just a darned idiot to confuse cardboard targets on a range with live people, some of whom shoot back. And I dont think there are that many darned idiots around.

 

[Ankeny]

Easier perhaps, but if you engage a target at say 7 to 12 feet the same way you would at 20 yards...

I agree, but at 7-12 feet the target is engaged by the seat of the pants, lol. FWIW, from concealed carry, with my normal jacket, regular carry gun and IWB holster, at 4 yards I can reliably have two rounds COM in 1.5 seconds, pretty much on demand. That ability comes from practicing the presentation for IDPA until I am "blue in the face". I do the same presentation from retainment (one hand), while moving backwards going from retainment to extension as the distance increases, while moving laterally, from behind the barricade, while taking a kneeling postion, off a table, etc. I would bet many of the self defense gurus practice the same drills, but probably not to the extent a demon possesed gamer will drill. I just can't understand why people get on my case because I choose to apply those skills on a square range on the weekends in competition with other shooters.

 

[fastbolt]

I wondered where the other thread went off to ...

I had just finished drafting a response, and when I finished and submitted it I noticed the thread was apparently in the process of being locked or deleted.

One of the points I wanted to make in my response to the other thread was that good, safe and practical gun-handling & shooting skills are where you find them. Their eventual tactical & strategic employment (if any) is often another, separate consideration ... but good gun-handling skills resulting in consistently fast & accurate shooting are JUST THAT, and nothing to treat in a cavalier manner.

It would definitely give me pause to think that each and every suspect I was going to be attempting to apprehend in the future were going to be possessed of Master or Grand Master IPSC skills. Some folks might say "So what? They're only Gamers." ... but not me.

This was a sort of timely thread, because I just saw an article in the December issue of Combat Handguns, by Mike Detty, entitled Valhalla & Its Warriors.

At one point in the article Mr. Detty makes the comment that he's never been in L/E, and that most of his pistol experience was gained as an IPSC competitor. He makes this comment in regard to something he noticed while negotiating the Valhalla Scenario House. He basically said that one of the hardest things for him to do in that exercise was to turn and assess potential threats to his rear, because breaking the 180 rule will get someone disqualified during a IPSC match.

I thought it was interesting that he mentioned this observation, and it apparently showed that he recognized how some of his prior IPSC experience didn't necessarily benefit him during the tactical exercise. He makes a couple other observations about what he calls his "novice" mistakes, as well. Isn't this what continued learning is all about?

It's just my opinion, but I'd offer that many folks who are able to recognize the potential disadvantages of applying certain skills gained from previous training in new circumstances, would also be able to quickly apply themselves to learning how to best adapt the advantages of their previously learned skills to the new situations. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider it possible for the safe, fast, accurate and multi-tasking type of gun-handling & shooting skills required to be a IPSC or IDPA competitor, to be applicable to defensive shooting scenarios. It's just a matter of cross-over training under the guidance of the right folks.

Mind-set and tactical considerations can be learned at any point, can't they?

Ankeny ,

Thanks for the previous video links. Since you mentioned your physical condition in that thread, I'd like to offer the opinion that I feel your demonstrated skills are all the more impressive considering what you listed as your physical condition. I know folks much younger and in fine physical condition that would like to be able to demonstrate such quick, smooth and accurate shooting while moving and engaging multiple targets with a hangun ... and they're "special" folks.

It's often easier to survive and learn from "mistakes" on square range, you know?

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Old Fuff]

Hopefully the Old Fuff made it clear that the people he knew did practice and train - and extensively so. But they chose to not participate in combat shooting games because they felt that what went on in them - in particular some of the courses of fire - were contradictory to what real-life experience had taught them. This is not to say that the various techniques had no value, just the way they were employed. In short, they drew a line between training and games. I have no dog in this particular fight, and no quarrel with those that believe the games have improved their overall performance. I just pointed out that the real-life gunfighters I knew didn’t see it that way.

Incidentally, within they’re ranks, two shots - and hits - from the leather at say 10 feet, in 1.5 seconds would have been considered a bit slow, but not at a longer distance.

 

[sigmaman]

i didnt read the thread

but why would any one put down any skill that is learned?
if your shooting idpa or paper plates or soda cans. what does it matter your learning to shoot. accurately. more power to ya.
just one of my many opinions