User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:05:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? Don't know. Probably. You know what really tends to effect people's marksmanship a lot more than rounds landing around them? Actually getting hit with half a dozen .50 BMG API rounds. Like taking a solid .50 BMG API bukakke to the face right off the bat. Your opinion is really pretty irrelevant. So is mine. Establishing fire superiority with suppressing fire, then maneuvering on the enemy, has been the baseline infantry doctrine for longer than any of us has been alive. It has been proven countless times, and adopted by every Army on the planet. Arguing against it is absolute nonsense. At no point have I argued against Infantry doctrine. There is nothing in any copy of any edition of the 7-8 or 3-21.8 that I possess in my personal library that contradicts anything I have said in this thread. Or maybe there is but I need one of Haley's ocular scientists to find it for me. Suppressing fire is part of basic doctrine. It applies to gun fights at every echelon, starting with individual and 2 man buddy team movements. This is the most basic and fundamental of concepts. It is taught to cooks at basic training. So your guy who barely passes basic marksmanship, has the same level of training on maneuver tactics... There are very good reasons for that, that are very well proven. So while hits are better than misses, suppressing fire is a known, expected and useful part of a lot of gun fights of all sizes, shapes and distances. This includes plenty of individual gun fights and self defense shoots. All of the clowns in this thread that have shown zero understanding of this, are in fact arguing against doctrine. If you don't understand that "misses" in the form of suppressive fire is a known and important tool to be used in gunfights... Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. And yes, you don't need ocular scientists to figure out basic fundamentals of shooting, nor basic tactics. Nor do you need to spend hours studying anatomy to be ready to carry a gun. Obviously Haley doesn't know everything and should better stick to talking about facts. Stoeger may be a pistol savant, but it seems he is just learning to use a rifle and scope, so like all the rest of us, he has a lot to learn. Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint.  Dramatic Footage Shows Dallas Officer Shot |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:08:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Hits would have suppressed that guy better and ended it sooner. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:12:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Hits would have suppressed that guy better and ended it sooner. You are correct. And competition shooters practice shooting moving targets. Weird, almost like it is useful… |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:23:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Hits would have suppressed that guy better and ended it sooner. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Hits would have suppressed that guy better and ended it sooner. Yeah but that's often not how it works out. Anyone who has done force on force training has seen similar things, often. Regardless of shooter skill, it happens, a lot. If just getting better at shooting was all that mattered, most of us wouldn't bother to carry guns that hold 13+ in the mag. Anyone who isn't a fool knows there's likely to be a lot of missing, and hits that don't fully incapacitate the threat. Some people may not like it, but those are the facts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:25:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: You are correct. And competition shooters practice shooting moving targets. Weird, almost like it is useful… Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Hits would have suppressed that guy better and ended it sooner. You are correct. And competition shooters practice shooting moving targets. Weird, almost like it is useful… What targets have you seen at competition that you think do a good job of replicating human movement? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:33:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: What targets have you seen at competition that you think do a good job of replicating human movement? Transitions between targets placed a few feet apart. Drills like el pres, for example, do a great job simulating a moving target. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:33:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Call it a shooting box then. Do you deny the benefits of firing a less than perfectly aimed shot while moving to cover? Aka suppressive fire Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By macman37: Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. In Sims training, when starting with two students in the open. The winner is often the person who runs to cover while point shooting, then, upon reaching cover, switches to aimed fire. Versus someone who stays on the X and goes immediately to aimed fire I have also never seen anyone teach “staying on the X” Call it a shooting box then. Do you deny the benefits of firing a less than perfectly aimed shot while moving to cover? Aka suppressive fire For better discussion, define the situation better for both of us. It’s just not that simple. If you’ve trained with someone preaching suppressive fire you need to re-evaluate who’s teaching you military tactics that could get you in major legal trouble. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:34:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: What targets have you seen at competition that you think do a good job of replicating human movement? Transition work as well as shooting on the move. Both simulate moving targets. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:34:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: I was reading a book one time where this guy talked about people who argued like that. He went on to remark that he gradually began to hate them. He might have been a little over emotional about it though, seemed a little upsetty spaghetti about not getting into art school. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By BMSMB: Why are you pretending a hit to the C and D zones arent still wounding or potentially fatal hits? I was reading a book one time where this guy talked about people who argued like that. He went on to remark that he gradually began to hate them. He might have been a little over emotional about it though, seemed a little upsetty spaghetti about not getting into art school. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:42:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? Don't know. Probably. You know what really tends to effect people's marksmanship a lot more than rounds landing around them? Actually getting hit with half a dozen .50 BMG API rounds. Like taking a solid .50 BMG API bukakke to the face right off the bat. Your opinion is really pretty irrelevant. So is mine. Establishing fire superiority with suppressing fire, then maneuvering on the enemy, has been the baseline infantry doctrine for longer than any of us has been alive. It has been proven countless times, and adopted by every Army on the planet. Arguing against it is absolute nonsense. At no point have I argued against Infantry doctrine. There is nothing in any copy of any edition of the 7-8 or 3-21.8 that I possess in my personal library that contradicts anything I have said in this thread. Or maybe there is but I need one of Haley's ocular scientists to find it for me. Suppressing fire is part of basic doctrine. It applies to gun fights at every echelon, starting with individual and 2 man buddy team movements. This is the most basic and fundamental of concepts. It is taught to cooks at basic training. So your guy who barely passes basic marksmanship, has the same level of training on maneuver tactics... There are very good reasons for that, that are very well proven. So while hits are better than misses, suppressing fire is a known, expected and useful part of a lot of gun fights of all sizes, shapes and distances. This includes plenty of individual gun fights and self defense shoots. All of the clowns in this thread that have shown zero understanding of this, are in fact arguing against doctrine. If you don't understand that "misses" in the form of suppressive fire is a known and important tool to be used in gunfights... Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. And yes, you don't need ocular scientists to figure out basic fundamentals of shooting, nor basic tactics. Nor do you need to spend hours studying anatomy to be ready to carry a gun. Obviously Haley doesn't know everything and should better stick to talking about facts. Stoeger may be a pistol savant, but it seems he is just learning to use a rifle and scope, so like all the rest of us, he has a lot to learn. Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Right. You’re now refocusing what you were saying earlier. You spoke to strictly suppressive fire previously. Now you’re saying moving targets are hard to hit, which I think anyone who’s a trainer or has taken good training will agree with. I get what you’re saying about people not wanting to get shot and thus resulting in misses. If you meant that all along, you shouldn't spray “suppressive fire works!!!!” on the internet and then redefine it later to mean something different, as you just did. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:44:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Transition work as well as shooting on the move. Both simulate moving targets. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: What targets have you seen at competition that you think do a good job of replicating human movement? Transition work as well as shooting on the move. Both simulate moving targets. And drop turners, swingers behind cover, bobbers, clam shells, stars, polish plate racks, Irish plate racks, spinners, etc. Movement is movement. It develops transferable skills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:57:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: And drop turners, swingers behind cover, bobbers, clam shells, stars, polish plate racks, Irish plate racks, spinners, etc. Movement is movement. It develops transferable skills. Yep, all of that too. I have actually seen some stages with targets on rolling carriages, but not common and I’ve not shot any. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:01:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Yep, all of that too. I have actually seen some stages with targets on rolling carriages, but not common and I’ve not shot any. Those are actually really easy to shoot. Almost may as well be static. This past Tuesday we had a star, polish, Irish, and a spinner for movers. I won Ltd Optics… TNS Score |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:10:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Yep, all of that too. I have actually seen some stages with targets on rolling carriages, but not common and I’ve not shot any. We had a small indoor match with a rolling carriage on a little roller coaster, it would change height and speed based on the hills in the tracks as it went across the stage, Popping out from NS. It was a lot of fun. Another place used bianchi movers, sometime you would should from the back of a moving trailer. And an occasional swinging bridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:12:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: Those are actually really easy to shoot. Almost may as well be static. This past Tuesday we had a star, polish, Irish, and a spinner for movers. I won Ltd Optics… TNS Score 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:12:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: Those are actually really easy to shoot. Almost may as well be static. This past Tuesday we had a star, polish, Irish, and a spinner for movers. I won Ltd Optics… TNS Score Depends on how fast it's moving. Slow is no fun. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:15:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: https://gifdb.com/images/high/we-re-not-worthy-gif-file-1011kb-1g8v53ozxwdhx5cd.gif Aww. You’re sweet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:27:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: Right. You’re now refocusing what you were saying earlier. You spoke to strictly suppressive fire previously. Now you’re saying moving targets are hard to hit, which I think anyone who’s a trainer or has taken good training will agree with. I get what you’re saying about people not wanting to get shot and thus resulting in misses. If you meant that all along, you shouldn't spray “suppressive fire works!!!!” on the internet and then redefine it later to mean something different, as you just did. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? Don't know. Probably. You know what really tends to effect people's marksmanship a lot more than rounds landing around them? Actually getting hit with half a dozen .50 BMG API rounds. Like taking a solid .50 BMG API bukakke to the face right off the bat. Your opinion is really pretty irrelevant. So is mine. Establishing fire superiority with suppressing fire, then maneuvering on the enemy, has been the baseline infantry doctrine for longer than any of us has been alive. It has been proven countless times, and adopted by every Army on the planet. Arguing against it is absolute nonsense. At no point have I argued against Infantry doctrine. There is nothing in any copy of any edition of the 7-8 or 3-21.8 that I possess in my personal library that contradicts anything I have said in this thread. Or maybe there is but I need one of Haley's ocular scientists to find it for me. Suppressing fire is part of basic doctrine. It applies to gun fights at every echelon, starting with individual and 2 man buddy team movements. This is the most basic and fundamental of concepts. It is taught to cooks at basic training. So your guy who barely passes basic marksmanship, has the same level of training on maneuver tactics... There are very good reasons for that, that are very well proven. So while hits are better than misses, suppressing fire is a known, expected and useful part of a lot of gun fights of all sizes, shapes and distances. This includes plenty of individual gun fights and self defense shoots. All of the clowns in this thread that have shown zero understanding of this, are in fact arguing against doctrine. If you don't understand that "misses" in the form of suppressive fire is a known and important tool to be used in gunfights... Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. And yes, you don't need ocular scientists to figure out basic fundamentals of shooting, nor basic tactics. Nor do you need to spend hours studying anatomy to be ready to carry a gun. Obviously Haley doesn't know everything and should better stick to talking about facts. Stoeger may be a pistol savant, but it seems he is just learning to use a rifle and scope, so like all the rest of us, he has a lot to learn. Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Right. You’re now refocusing what you were saying earlier. You spoke to strictly suppressive fire previously. Now you’re saying moving targets are hard to hit, which I think anyone who’s a trainer or has taken good training will agree with. I get what you’re saying about people not wanting to get shot and thus resulting in misses. If you meant that all along, you shouldn't spray “suppressive fire works!!!!” on the internet and then redefine it later to mean something different, as you just did. As I've already stated, suppressive fire can be the result of both deliberate or unintended misses. It's an effect, not necessarily an intention. See also Dallas cop video from previous posts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:30:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Yep, all of that too. I have actually seen some stages with targets on rolling carriages, but not common and I’ve not shot any. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By fastluck13: And drop turners, swingers behind cover, bobbers, clam shells, stars, polish plate racks, Irish plate racks, spinners, etc. Movement is movement. It develops transferable skills. Yep, all of that too. I have actually seen some stages with targets on rolling carriages, but not common and I’ve not shot any. I agree with the examples given as useful shooting drills for building skills to engage moving targets. But they don't replicate human movements and the difficulty of engaging people in a fight worth a damn. It's REALLY easy to tell who in this thread has some force on force training and who doesn't. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:41:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: As I've already stated, suppressive fire can be the result of both deliberate or unintended misses. It's an effect, not necessarily an intention. See also Dallas cop video from previous posts. What happens when your deliberate miss hits an innocent person downrange. They aren't going to respawn like your call of duty video games |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:43:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: As I've already stated, suppressive fire can be the result of both deliberate or unintended misses. It's an effect, not necessarily an intention. See also Dallas cop video from previous posts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? Don't know. Probably. You know what really tends to effect people's marksmanship a lot more than rounds landing around them? Actually getting hit with half a dozen .50 BMG API rounds. Like taking a solid .50 BMG API bukakke to the face right off the bat. Your opinion is really pretty irrelevant. So is mine. Establishing fire superiority with suppressing fire, then maneuvering on the enemy, has been the baseline infantry doctrine for longer than any of us has been alive. It has been proven countless times, and adopted by every Army on the planet. Arguing against it is absolute nonsense. At no point have I argued against Infantry doctrine. There is nothing in any copy of any edition of the 7-8 or 3-21.8 that I possess in my personal library that contradicts anything I have said in this thread. Or maybe there is but I need one of Haley's ocular scientists to find it for me. Suppressing fire is part of basic doctrine. It applies to gun fights at every echelon, starting with individual and 2 man buddy team movements. This is the most basic and fundamental of concepts. It is taught to cooks at basic training. So your guy who barely passes basic marksmanship, has the same level of training on maneuver tactics... There are very good reasons for that, that are very well proven. So while hits are better than misses, suppressing fire is a known, expected and useful part of a lot of gun fights of all sizes, shapes and distances. This includes plenty of individual gun fights and self defense shoots. All of the clowns in this thread that have shown zero understanding of this, are in fact arguing against doctrine. If you don't understand that "misses" in the form of suppressive fire is a known and important tool to be used in gunfights... Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. And yes, you don't need ocular scientists to figure out basic fundamentals of shooting, nor basic tactics. Nor do you need to spend hours studying anatomy to be ready to carry a gun. Obviously Haley doesn't know everything and should better stick to talking about facts. Stoeger may be a pistol savant, but it seems he is just learning to use a rifle and scope, so like all the rest of us, he has a lot to learn. Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Right. You’re now refocusing what you were saying earlier. You spoke to strictly suppressive fire previously. Now you’re saying moving targets are hard to hit, which I think anyone who’s a trainer or has taken good training will agree with. I get what you’re saying about people not wanting to get shot and thus resulting in misses. If you meant that all along, you shouldn't spray “suppressive fire works!!!!” on the internet and then redefine it later to mean something different, as you just did. As I've already stated, suppressive fire can be the result of both deliberate or unintended misses. It's an effect, not necessarily an intention. See also Dallas cop video from previous posts. You’re getting a lot of mileage out of the single example that fits your singular opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:46:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with the examples given as useful shooting drills for building skills to engage moving targets. But they don't replicate human movements and the difficulty of engaging people in a fight worth a damn. It's REALLY easy to tell who in this thread has some force on force training and who doesn't. So, you shoot at moving people in said training? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:48:09 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:49:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: So, you shoot at moving people in said training? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with the examples given as useful shooting drills for building skills to engage moving targets. But they don't replicate human movements and the difficulty of engaging people in a fight worth a damn. It's REALLY easy to tell who in this thread has some force on force training and who doesn't. So, you shoot at moving people in said training? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:51:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: You’re getting a lot of mileage out of the single example that fits your singular opinion. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? Don't know. Probably. You know what really tends to effect people's marksmanship a lot more than rounds landing around them? Actually getting hit with half a dozen .50 BMG API rounds. Like taking a solid .50 BMG API bukakke to the face right off the bat. Your opinion is really pretty irrelevant. So is mine. Establishing fire superiority with suppressing fire, then maneuvering on the enemy, has been the baseline infantry doctrine for longer than any of us has been alive. It has been proven countless times, and adopted by every Army on the planet. Arguing against it is absolute nonsense. At no point have I argued against Infantry doctrine. There is nothing in any copy of any edition of the 7-8 or 3-21.8 that I possess in my personal library that contradicts anything I have said in this thread. Or maybe there is but I need one of Haley's ocular scientists to find it for me. Suppressing fire is part of basic doctrine. It applies to gun fights at every echelon, starting with individual and 2 man buddy team movements. This is the most basic and fundamental of concepts. It is taught to cooks at basic training. So your guy who barely passes basic marksmanship, has the same level of training on maneuver tactics... There are very good reasons for that, that are very well proven. So while hits are better than misses, suppressing fire is a known, expected and useful part of a lot of gun fights of all sizes, shapes and distances. This includes plenty of individual gun fights and self defense shoots. All of the clowns in this thread that have shown zero understanding of this, are in fact arguing against doctrine. If you don't understand that "misses" in the form of suppressive fire is a known and important tool to be used in gunfights... Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. And yes, you don't need ocular scientists to figure out basic fundamentals of shooting, nor basic tactics. Nor do you need to spend hours studying anatomy to be ready to carry a gun. Obviously Haley doesn't know everything and should better stick to talking about facts. Stoeger may be a pistol savant, but it seems he is just learning to use a rifle and scope, so like all the rest of us, he has a lot to learn. Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Right. You’re now refocusing what you were saying earlier. You spoke to strictly suppressive fire previously. Now you’re saying moving targets are hard to hit, which I think anyone who’s a trainer or has taken good training will agree with. I get what you’re saying about people not wanting to get shot and thus resulting in misses. If you meant that all along, you shouldn't spray “suppressive fire works!!!!” on the internet and then redefine it later to mean something different, as you just did. As I've already stated, suppressive fire can be the result of both deliberate or unintended misses. It's an effect, not necessarily an intention. See also Dallas cop video from previous posts. You’re getting a lot of mileage out of the single example that fits your singular opinion. Do you think that's the only example or some sort of rare exception? What force on force training have you done? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:52:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOk. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:59:56 PM EDT
[#27]
This thread is lol to the max.
Just another example of bad shooters justifying their poor performance with strawman arguments or citing poor performance and bad training as the reason why things aren't possible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:09:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you think that's the only example or some sort of rare exception? What force on force training have you done? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? Don't know. Probably. You know what really tends to effect people's marksmanship a lot more than rounds landing around them? Actually getting hit with half a dozen .50 BMG API rounds. Like taking a solid .50 BMG API bukakke to the face right off the bat. Your opinion is really pretty irrelevant. So is mine. Establishing fire superiority with suppressing fire, then maneuvering on the enemy, has been the baseline infantry doctrine for longer than any of us has been alive. It has been proven countless times, and adopted by every Army on the planet. Arguing against it is absolute nonsense. At no point have I argued against Infantry doctrine. There is nothing in any copy of any edition of the 7-8 or 3-21.8 that I possess in my personal library that contradicts anything I have said in this thread. Or maybe there is but I need one of Haley's ocular scientists to find it for me. Suppressing fire is part of basic doctrine. It applies to gun fights at every echelon, starting with individual and 2 man buddy team movements. This is the most basic and fundamental of concepts. It is taught to cooks at basic training. So your guy who barely passes basic marksmanship, has the same level of training on maneuver tactics... There are very good reasons for that, that are very well proven. So while hits are better than misses, suppressing fire is a known, expected and useful part of a lot of gun fights of all sizes, shapes and distances. This includes plenty of individual gun fights and self defense shoots. All of the clowns in this thread that have shown zero understanding of this, are in fact arguing against doctrine. If you don't understand that "misses" in the form of suppressive fire is a known and important tool to be used in gunfights... Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. And yes, you don't need ocular scientists to figure out basic fundamentals of shooting, nor basic tactics. Nor do you need to spend hours studying anatomy to be ready to carry a gun. Obviously Haley doesn't know everything and should better stick to talking about facts. Stoeger may be a pistol savant, but it seems he is just learning to use a rifle and scope, so like all the rest of us, he has a lot to learn. Yeegads. Who is teaching suppressing fire in a street fight? I can tell you from training with 5 or 6 in-person trainers and watching training videos from another couple dozen, I’ve never seen suppressing fire being taught. The opposite in fact. The regular world is not Mogadishu. You don't have to teach it or do it deliberately for it to be a thing. That's just how gun fights work. The facts are that people tend to move around and not wanna get shot. Regardless of what you think your skill level is, moving targets are hard to hit. What you can end up with is something like this. Near misses resulting in effective suppressing fire, maneuver to a position of advantage... And the ending isn't exactly decided in a manner that's impressive from a marksmanship standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8Right. You’re now refocusing what you were saying earlier. You spoke to strictly suppressive fire previously. Now you’re saying moving targets are hard to hit, which I think anyone who’s a trainer or has taken good training will agree with. I get what you’re saying about people not wanting to get shot and thus resulting in misses. If you meant that all along, you shouldn't spray “suppressive fire works!!!!” on the internet and then redefine it later to mean something different, as you just did. As I've already stated, suppressive fire can be the result of both deliberate or unintended misses. It's an effect, not necessarily an intention. See also Dallas cop video from previous posts. You’re getting a lot of mileage out of the single example that fits your singular opinion. Do you think that's the only example or some sort of rare exception? What force on force training have you done? You seem to, since you’re spamming the thread with it. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:32:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryI don’t like him….but I do… I believe him and Haley live in the PHX area now. Will be interesting when paths cross. Or not. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:35:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: At some point I wish all these guys would shoot in some big matches so we can really see which "systems" prevail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:37:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's REALLY easy to tell who in this thread has some force on force training and who doesn't. I've had force on force training. You've been given examples of common moving targets, some of which are or can be depending on setup more difficult to hit than a person moving the way people do. You'll probably never be someone who has shot at both, so you'll just have to take my word for it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:39:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: This thread is lol to the max. Just another example of bad shooters justifying their poor performance with strawman arguments or citing poor performance and bad training as the reason why things aren't possible. Not quite lol to the max. The funniest post in the thread would have been funnier if I'd posted it yesterday. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:39:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Singlestack_Wonder: Travis has participated in real world gunfights and has proven himself. So have kids in Africa |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:43:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AbleArcher]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: So have kids in Africa Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: Originally Posted By Singlestack_Wonder: Travis has participated in real world gunfights and has proven himself. So have kids in Africa That's a good arf poll: Would you rather have a platoon of competition shooters or a platoon of battle proven African child soldiers? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:11:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: That's a good arf poll: Would you rather have a platoon of competition shooters or a platoon of battle proven African child soldiers? Definitely link it here if you make that poll |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:16:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: bg10]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with the examples given as useful shooting drills for building skills to engage moving targets. But they don't replicate human movements and the difficulty of engaging people in a fight worth a damn. It's REALLY easy to tell who in this thread has some force on force training and who doesn't. I’ve done my fair share of FoF. It’s an excellent part of training. Unfortunately it’s pretty impractical to set up with any regularity for most cops, much less for non-LE. I’ve found that my performance in FoF stuff improved when I began focusing more on dry fire and shooting with a timer. The hard skills translate to everything else, in my experience. Shooting under time/stress makes everything slow down, IMO. force on force included. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 10:20:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Singlestack_Wonder: Travis has participated in real world gunfights and has proven himself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Singlestack_Wonder: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: At some point I wish all these guys would shoot in some big matches so we can really see which "systems" prevail. Proven himself as what? Be specific. I won't speak for everyone but as I stated before I am aware of his service and well aware that he was a good soldier. This is about firearms training. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 10:37:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LuckyDucky]
[#38]
All the timmies vastly overestimate shooting skill.
Imagine if you did not know how to walk. Would you argue that learnings tactics was more important than learning to walk? USPSA B class isn't even that good, and yet they are better than the vast majority of gun owners, including LEO/Mil. Teaching tactics to someone that can shoot is easier than teaching skill to someone that can't shoot. Would you want to rely on a squadmate that can't shoot? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 4:02:18 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Singlestack_Wonder: Travis has participated in real world gunfights and has proven himself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Singlestack_Wonder: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: At some point I wish all these guys would shoot in some big matches so we can really see which "systems" prevail. Would you say his real world gunfighting experience was 99.9% rifle? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 7:12:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Nine pages devoted to picking apart one sentence from a guy who’s done a lot of good things in the training world.
Let nobody ever tell you Arfcom is not 100% autism-enabled. ‘Tay frothty Affbros! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 7:28:32 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By macman37: Nine pages devoted to picking apart one sentence from a guy who’s done a lot of good things in the training world. Let nobody ever tell you Arfcom is not 100% autism-enabled. ‘Tay frothty Affbros! There's maybe one page worth of posts about the actual comment in question. The rest is poo flinging between people who can shoot good and people who have reasons why its okay that they don't shoot good. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 7:36:19 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: There's maybe one page worth of posts about the actual comment in question. The rest is poo flinging between people who can shoot good and people who have reasons why its okay that they don't shoot good. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By macman37: Nine pages devoted to picking apart one sentence from a guy who’s done a lot of good things in the training world. Let nobody ever tell you Arfcom is not 100% autism-enabled. ‘Tay frothty Affbros! There's maybe one page worth of posts about the actual comment in question. The rest is poo flinging between people who can shoot good and people who have reasons why its okay that they don't shoot good. That’s how I am seeing it too. Confirmation bias and Dunning Kruger all up in this bitch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 8:11:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LuckyDucky: All the timmies vastly overestimate shooting skill. Imagine if you did not know how to walk. Would you argue that learnings tactics was more important than learning to walk? USPSA B class isn't even that good, and yet they are better than the vast majority of gun owners, including LEO/Mil. Teaching tactics to someone that can shoot is easier than teaching skill to someone that can't shoot. Would you want to rely on a squadmate that can't shoot? Squad mate for what? LARPing? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 8:29:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: Squad mate for what? LARPing? Depends on the specific Timmy in question but yeah that's probably a lot of them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:29:00 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bg10: Transitions between targets placed a few feet apart. Drills like el pres, for example, do a great job simulating a moving target. I don't agree. Transitions are a thing one should know how to do, but transitions on the range do not come close to simulating engaging a moving target in the real world where you will have to consider changes in background and foreground as part of the calculation. Hitting a moving animal through the woods is a lot closer. Shot opportunities are fleeting and non-linear, usually. Background but especially foreground changes. Elevation changes. Target moves unpredictably. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:34:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Depends on the specific Timmy in question but yeah that's probably a lot of them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: Squad mate for what? LARPing? Depends on the specific Timmy in question but yeah that's probably a lot of them. Tactics are gay. Accuracy is final. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:36:01 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: There’s nothing wrong with teaching yourself. Very few people are autodidacts. Very few people have the capacity to coach themselves, at least until they've built significant skills. At a certain point you're the only person who can really teach you, but most people never really get there. There's definitely nothing wrong with teaching yourself but teaching yourself something you don't understand is more difficult. Most people don't really know how to teach, meaning if they are self taught they have really shitty instructors. Nothing will fuck you up faster than having a shitty instructor. It's easier to teach yourself if you have proficiency or mastery in something else with a lot of independent study because you already have a working model for achievement and analysis. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:38:06 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: Good instructors will let you know what you need to work on, and will teach you how to properly practice it The most valuable thing an instructor can do is reframe your thinking on something to make the process you're going for more clear. What most people are looking for when they come to a class, though, is coaching. I've paid a lot of people for training over the years. Very few of them were any good as coaches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:38:52 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: So, you shoot at moving people in said training? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: I agree with the examples given as useful shooting drills for building skills to engage moving targets. But they don't replicate human movements and the difficulty of engaging people in a fight worth a damn. It's REALLY easy to tell who in this thread has some force on force training and who doesn't. So, you shoot at moving people in said training? Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:40:25 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: If they will listen and follow, it is pretty easy to lead physically fit guys, who are proficient with their weapons and the basics. Saturday I taught a VPO class. Two people had optics mounts that were backwards. Proficiency with weapons is not even remotely common enough to do fire and maneuver stuff for the vast majority of people who are even conscientious enough to seek out training in the first place. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
