User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:41:22 AM EDT
My trainer has 5. Lol. He gotta pump those numbers up. https://youtu.be/0RvRESjM2jw?si=9605u3qEs4MSOtgT |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:06:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: So do you really not understand how hit factor scoring works or are you just pretending to be retarded? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By StevenH: So the winner is whoever shoots all alphas the fastest? So do you really not understand how hit factor scoring works or are you just pretending to be retarded? Is this the same fool who seeks out and shits on every USPSA thread because he doesn't understand how it works or is that someone else? I honestly can't remember. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:11:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: So the winner is whoever shoots all alphas the fastest? It’s whoever shoots the most points per second. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:25:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: It’s whoever shoots the most points per second. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By StevenH: So the winner is whoever shoots all alphas the fastest? It’s whoever shoots the most points per second. DoES sUpPreSSive fiRe pOIntS coUNt? MiSSinG is iMpoRtaNt tOO! Reeeeeeeee! |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:30:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheFaz]
[#4]
It's funny to see people saying shooting skills aren't important in a military environment but tier one units who are the ones most likely to actually engage others with small arms invest an enormous amount of time, money and training in the use of them. I had a couple friends in an MI SMU and there was both a significant training regimen with the handgun but also a stringent qualification requirement that would kick you out of the unit for failing to meet it. Most are aware of the Delta OTS firearms training and qualification standards which again will get you kicked out for not meeting. Those units all must do team tactics, maneuver, comes, etc. but certainly seem to think that high level proficiency with firearms is a fundamental building block to everything they do.
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:36:58 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheFaz: It's funny to see people saying shooting skills aren't important in a military environment but tier one units who are the ones most likely to actually engage others with small arms invest an enormous amount of time, money and training in the use of them. I had a couple friends in an MI SMU and there was both a significant training regimen with the handgun but also a stringent qualification requirement that would kick you out of the unit for failing to meet it. Most are aware of the Delta OTS firearms training and qualification standards which again will get you kicked out for not meeting. Those units all must do team tactics, maneuver, comes, etc. but certainly seem to think that high level proficiency with firearms is a fundamental building block to everything they do. There is a huge difference between saying "shooting skills aren't important" and saying "shooting skills aren't as important as a ton of other stuff." Delta would drop the best shooter in the world in an instant if he couldn't do all that other stuff that matters in combat. It doesn't take watching much gunfight footage before you realize that accuracy is way down the list of stuff that matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:43:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Ben just tossed another log on the fire. I don't think he is wrong in a couple points he is making.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn60Lc8qKXUDude, Travis needs to stop. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:45:33 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: There is a huge difference between saying "shooting skills aren't important" and saying "shooting skills aren't as important as a ton of other stuff." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: There is a huge difference between saying "shooting skills aren't important" and saying "shooting skills aren't as important as a ton of other stuff." What about "shooting skills are as important as other stuff"? How come the only people who have a problem with that statement always seem to not want to post practiscore results? Delta would drop the best shooter in the world in an instant if he couldn't do all that other stuff that matters in combat. I haven't seen anyone in this thread is claiming otherwise. It doesn't take watching much gunfight footage before you realize that accuracy is way down the list of stuff that matters. It doesn't take much getting in gunfights to realize this is incorrect. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:51:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Dude, Travis needs to stop. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Originally Posted By Advance: Ben just tossed another log on the fire. I don't think he is wrong in a couple points he is making. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn60Lc8qKXUDude, Travis needs to stop. Ben is pretty spot on. Haley deserves the ire he is getting. To mban2’s point (@mban2), the premier military combat shooting program in the world (the one at former Fort Bragg) uses none of this pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. Just a crapload of range time, proper practice, and expert supervision (meaning expert-level instructors, and no ocular scientists). |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:52:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryIt doesn't take much getting in gunfights to realize this is incorrect. Quote HistoryIt doesn't take watching much gunfight footage before you realize that accuracy is way down the list of stuff that matters. It doesn't take much getting in gunfights to realize this is incorrect. I kinda feel like there are some full blown tactards around here who think everything is a war zone. I the civilian world, the most important tactics are “don’t get in a gun fight.” If you do happen to end up in one, speed and accuracy seem really fucking high in things that are important. Moving and shooting seem good. Especially while getting to cover. But most of these people can’t walk and chew gum, much less run and shoot well. |
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:55:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: I kinda feel like there are some full blown tactards around here who think everything is a war zone. I the civilian world, the most important tactics are “don’t get in a gun fight.” If you do happen to end up in one, speed and accuracy seem really fucking high in things that are important. Moving and shooting seem good. Especially while getting to cover. But most of these people can’t walk and chew gum, much less run and shoot well. Perfect. So, would you say that it is better to be really fast and accurate or that it's better to be able to recognize danger and avoid it? Because this is the civilian version of what everyone is saying when they say accuracy is way down this list of things that are important. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:02:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: Perfect. So, would you say that it is better to be really fast and accurate or that it's better to be able to recognize danger and avoid it? Because this is the civilian version of what everyone is saying when they say accuracy is way down this list of things that are important. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: Originally Posted By fastluck13: I kinda feel like there are some full blown tactards around here who think everything is a war zone. I the civilian world, the most important tactics are “don’t get in a gun fight.” If you do happen to end up in one, speed and accuracy seem really fucking high in things that are important. Moving and shooting seem good. Especially while getting to cover. But most of these people can’t walk and chew gum, much less run and shoot well. Perfect. So, would you say that it is better to be really fast and accurate or that it's better to be able to recognize danger and avoid it? Because this is the civilian version of what everyone is saying when they say accuracy is way down this list of things that are important. Dear god. I have gone 49 years successfully avoiding getting in a gun fight. Or mugged. Or stabbed. Or abducted. Clearly I have that part down pretty well. So it seems I should practice the “what if” part of the equation. I hope I never have to find out but my odds are significantly better than average. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:09:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: It doesn't take watching much gunfight footage before you realize that accuracy is way down the list of stuff that matters. In a gunfight, what are the things you would say are more important than accuracy? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:13:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fastluck13: Dear god. I have gone 49 years successfully avoiding getting in a gun fight. Or mugged. Or stabbed. Or abducted. Clearly I have that part down pretty well. So it seems I should practice the “what if” part of the equation. I hope I never have to find out but my odds are significantly better than average. Well I have not. I actually did the opposite of avoiding them. My only regret was not getting in more of them. In fact, I hated my second deployment because I didn't get into any of them that time (ugh, mega cringe!). And I'm here to tell the TRADOC bros and entertrainment consoomers that if it's a binary choice between one or the other, you're basically trading luck for skill because you can't be bothered to do what amounts to structured play time for 5 minutes a day. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:16:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: In a gunfight, what are the things you would say are more important than accuracy? Volume of fire, getting lucky, and having the coolest multicam pattern Crye Precision underpants. I mean I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:21:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Volume of fire, getting lucky, and having the coolest multicam pattern Crye Precision underpants. I mean I guess. Damn. I was way off - figured it was the OODA loop, position sul, and racking the pistol off your shoe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:36:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: Damn. I was way off - figured it was the OODA loop, position sul, and racking the pistol off your shoe. Hell I wasn't making a comprehensive list. We gotta include all that stuff too if we was. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:42:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JShepard: Ben is pretty spot on. Haley deserves the ire he is getting. To mban2’s point (@mban2), the premier military combat shooting program in the world (the one at former Fort Bragg) uses none of this pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. Just a crapload of range time, proper practice, and expert supervision (meaning expert-level instructors, and no ocular scientists). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JShepard: Originally Posted By sierra-def: Originally Posted By Advance: Ben just tossed another log on the fire. I don't think he is wrong in a couple points he is making. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn60Lc8qKXUDude, Travis needs to stop. Ben is pretty spot on. Haley deserves the ire he is getting. To mban2’s point (@mban2), the premier military combat shooting program in the world (the one at former Fort Bragg) uses none of this pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. Just a crapload of range time, proper practice, and expert supervision (meaning expert-level instructors, and no ocular scientists). I remember a video with Ron Avery and Travis Haley. Ron would teach simplicity, Travis was overcomplicating the pistol draw. Let's just say I didn't see another video of those two together. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 10:29:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: In a gunfight, what are the things you would say are more important than accuracy? Taking the initiative, positioning, use of cover, basic gun handling, use of light if it's in the dark, communication if you have team. If you need exceptional speed and accuracy to win a gunfight, you've already messed up a lot of higher-order skills. Conversely, if you did all those other things perfectly, your gunfight becomes a simple shooting that you'll win no matter how inaccurate you are. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 10:35:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: So, would you say that it is better to be really fast and accurate or that it's better to be able to recognize danger and avoid it? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 11:05:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Ben just tossed another log on the fire. I don't think he is wrong in a couple points he is making. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn60Lc8qKXU |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 11:44:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Advance]
[#21]
This thread in a nutshell
Mil bros: You gotta have a massively asymmetrical unfair fight, CAS, QRF, squad tactics, coms, suppressive fire, crew served weapons, ISR, covering fire, suppressive fire and aggressive direct action. Fairy dancing with race guns is inferior. Comp dudes: Umm.. We're civilians living in a civilian World. 95% of that shit isn't available to us and even if it was, it would be useless for the life/death situations that present themselves to typical Americans. Shooting high round counts stoopid fast and accurate while running between targets comes with a set of advantages that are so obvious, even you mil bros are hiring us to train you up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 11:57:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FedDC: You have no idea what to care about because you lack life experience to separate reality from theory. Start with cardio, get good at BJJ and person under control methodology, roll around in the mat room in full kit for a month or three, master urban and rural SUT, learn room entry and basic CQB, add in vehicle CQB, do all that as a team in both day and night….and after that…what Ben says is useful. Wow, I really wanted to finish reading before commenting, but your comment is so full of ego and arrogance that I have to reply. You have about the highest inflated self importance of any poster I've come across here... and you're dead wrong. -a black belt in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program and BJJ blue belt -6 time expert on USMC rifle qual and 2x handgun marksman and a USPSA master class shooter None of training I did in the Marines even comes close to the levels of competence I've experienced from civilian competitors... in shooting and martial arts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 11:58:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: This thread in a nutshell Mil bros: You gotta have a massively asymmetrical unfair fight, CAS, QRF, squads, coms, suppressive fire, crew served weapons, ISR, covering fire, suppressive fire and aggressive direct action. Fairy dancing with race guns is inferior. Comp dudes: I’m Umm.. We're civilians living in a civilian World. 95% of that shit isn't available to us and even if it was, it would be useless for the life/death situations that present themselves to typical Americans. Shooting high round counts stoopid fast and accurate while running between targets comes with a set of advantages that are so obvious, even you mil bros are hiring us to train you up. It’s more like. Mil dudes understanding there’s more to fighting than just the ability to shoot fast and accurate. Comp dudes. In order to be successful at competition you must shoot fast and accurate. That translates to having the advantage in a self defense situation. Both can be right. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 12:23:15 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -Ascent-: It’s more like. Mil dudes understanding there’s more to fighting than just the ability to shoot fast and accurate. Comp dudes. In order to be successful at competition you must shoot fast and accurate. That translates to having the advantage in a self defense situation. Both can be right. Both are indeed right... For vastly different scenarios. Now all we have to do is be honest with ourselves and identify which scenario is more likely to be encountered by a non LEO/Mil person and which tools are realistically available. I don't have 3-5 trained up dudes at my side 24/7 or a drone circling overhead providing a real time link to a TOC. I do however have a pistol that I carry and I am often "alone" when I carry it. A few Stoeger classes are going to be more beneficial to me than anything involving team tactics, CQB, comms, shoot/move/communicate, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 12:39:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Both are indeed right... For vastly different scenarios. Now all we have to do is be honest with ourselves and identify which scenario is more likely to be encountered by a non LEO/Mil person and which tools are realistically available. I don't have 3-5 trained up dudes at my side 24/7 or a drone circling overhead providing a real time link to a TOC. I do however have a pistol that I carry and I am often "alone" when I carry it. A few Stoeger classes are going to be more beneficial to me than anything involving team tactics, CQB, comms, shoot/move/communicate, etc. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Originally Posted By -Ascent-: It’s more like. Mil dudes understanding there’s more to fighting than just the ability to shoot fast and accurate. Comp dudes. In order to be successful at competition you must shoot fast and accurate. That translates to having the advantage in a self defense situation. Both can be right. Both are indeed right... For vastly different scenarios. Now all we have to do is be honest with ourselves and identify which scenario is more likely to be encountered by a non LEO/Mil person and which tools are realistically available. I don't have 3-5 trained up dudes at my side 24/7 or a drone circling overhead providing a real time link to a TOC. I do however have a pistol that I carry and I am often "alone" when I carry it. A few Stoeger classes are going to be more beneficial to me than anything involving team tactics, CQB, comms, shoot/move/communicate, etc. Some people train for self defense. Some people train for the reason the 2A was made. Some people just want to larp with their friends. Some train for securing their neighborhoods during a Katrina style event. There’s a place for it all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 1:48:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Missilegeek]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bpm990d: Lots of people would be well served by circling back around and focusing on some fundamental marksmanship. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bpm990d: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: There seems to be a cult who believe that anything that doesn't involve a shot timer and cardboard guys on sticks, is an irrelevant waste of time. Lol. Lots of people would be well served by circling back around and focusing on some fundamental marksmanship. 100% agree. It's ignorant to say otherwise. There is always merit to practicing to improve or maintain your basic fundamentals. Lots of people would also be well served to know the basics of force on force fire and maneuver. It's ignorant to argue otherwise... Yet here we have several people doing so, in this very thread, in what has now become a pretty big derail. People that seemingly have zero experience or knowledge about force on force claiming it doesn't matter is crazy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 1:53:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Because we were both just a couple of morons bussin rounds at each other. Neither of us was very good at shooting. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: 100 rounds from an M2 takes a while. Probably a solid minute or two on that old shot timer... Why do you suppose Ahmed didn't just stand up and shoot you or run away during that time? Because we were both just a couple of morons bussin rounds at each other. Neither of us was very good at shooting. Do you suppose there's any chance that the 99 .50 Cal rounds landing around his position might have effected his marksmanship a tad? 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 2:30:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Dude, Travis needs to stop. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sierra-def: Originally Posted By Advance: Ben just tossed another log on the fire. I don't think he is wrong in a couple points he is making. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn60Lc8qKXUDude, Travis needs to stop. If I remember correctly, Haley says about a half dozen cringey things in that interview. So there's likely more valid criticism from Stoeger to come. |
|
|
|
AUS
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 3:26:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GroundhogOZ]
[#29]
Accurate is not the same as effective. To be both you have to train regularly and under duress. If you can't perform under duress you're not effective. Even the best of the best, whether they be civilian or military regularly consult with different coaches or training groups - often, to simply debug and or to pick up unique insights.
With competent people there is rarely a right or wrong approach, just different ways of skinning the same cat. Moreover, without different viewpoints and or different approaches there is no innovation in regard to process, systems, outcomes and equipment. Smart and effective people will drawer on multiple sources to improve their effectiveness and performance in the round. Hayley simply represents one source amongst many. To me he seems to be a decent guy who also happens to be a good communicator, both skills are necessary to be a good coach. A willingness to try new ideas or bring in different metrics is the sign of a curious mind, one that may lead to innovation - equally, there may be some dead ends too. Personally I see nothing wrong with his approach as long as it isn't used in isolation and can demonstrate measurable improvement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 4:06:49 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:14:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GroundhogOZ: Accurate is not the same as effective. To be both you have to train regularly and under duress. If you can't perform under duress you're not effective. Even the best of the best, whether they be civilian or military regularly consult with different coaches or training groups - often, to simply debug and or to pick up unique insights. With competent people there is rarely a right or wrong approach, just different ways of skinning the same cat. Moreover, without different viewpoints and or different approaches there is no innovation in regard to process, systems, outcomes and equipment. Smart and effective people will drawer on multiple sources to improve their effectiveness and performance in the round. Hayley simply represents one source amongst many. To me he seems to be a decent guy who also happens to be a good communicator, both skills are necessary to be a good coach. A willingness to try new ideas or bring in different metrics is the sign of a curious mind, one that may lead to innovation - equally, there may be some dead ends too. Personally I see nothing wrong with his approach as long as it isn't used in isolation and can demonstrate measurable improvement. Here's 3 and a half minutes of everything you need from "occular science" to apply to shooting.  Watch the eyes There is no way that anyone simultaneously needs these concepts explained with a bunch of sciency nerd shit and is also capable of understanding the sciency nerd shit. |
|
|
|
AUS
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 6:36:10 AM EDT
[#32]
IF performance can be measurably improved is that a good or bad outcome?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 7:28:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GroundhogOZ: IF performance can be measurably improved is that a good or bad outcome? Obviously improving performance is a good thing. Some methods of trying to improve performance are objectively more effective than others, and some metrics of performance are objectively more relevant than others. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:22:10 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: Taking the initiative, positioning, use of cover, basic gun handling, use of light if it's in the dark, communication if you have team. If you need exceptional speed and accuracy to win a gunfight, you've already messed up a lot of higher-order skills. Conversely, if you did all those other things perfectly, your gunfight becomes a simple shooting that you'll win no matter how inaccurate you are. I’d disagree, especially in the context of a civilian self defense or LE type engagement. But at this point in the thread I’m confused as to whether we’re talking about that or infantry stuff. But I don’t think that the Haleys of the training world are out there teaching fireteam rushes, interlocking fields of fire, constructing fighting positions, patrolling, reacting to close contact vs far, etc, etc so who knows. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 8:49:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: -Ascent-]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: I’d disagree, especially in the context of a civilian self defense or LE type engagement. But at this point in the thread I’m confused as to whether we’re talking about that or infantry stuff. But I don’t think that the Haleys of the training world are out there teaching fireteam rushes, interlocking fields of fire, constructing fighting positions, patrolling, reacting to close contact vs far, etc, etc so who knows. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: Originally Posted By ARCNA442: Taking the initiative, positioning, use of cover, basic gun handling, use of light if it's in the dark, communication if you have team. If you need exceptional speed and accuracy to win a gunfight, you've already messed up a lot of higher-order skills. Conversely, if you did all those other things perfectly, your gunfight becomes a simple shooting that you'll win no matter how inaccurate you are. I’d disagree, especially in the context of a civilian self defense or LE type engagement. But at this point in the thread I’m confused as to whether we’re talking about that or infantry stuff. But I don’t think that the Haleys of the training world are out there teaching fireteam rushes, interlocking fields of fire, constructing fighting positions, patrolling, reacting to close contact vs far, etc, etc so who knows. All that training is out there you just have to look. In an LE context I think it’s never been more relevant to know have to do CQB at different team levels. Think active shooter situations where the tactics have changed from cordon to assault. Now you got a handful of patrol officers with carbines clearing buildings. There are principles that can be taken from military training for self defense. Situation awareness, proper use of cover, understanding cover expires- knowing when expired cover is worse than concealment, how to move through your house to get to your kids. Competition and timer helping you build your balance of speed and accuracy. After you have a solid bed rock of fundamentals and safety. There is knowledge to be gathered at every type of training. For either side of the argument to blow the other side off is kinda ridiculous. The bases of the 2A isn’t just self defense. I know that’s not what’s be said directly but some people want to know how to do all those infantry task because they believe that’s why the 2A exists. Is Travis taking sports science to deeply into basic shooting. Maybe he is but is he being justified in doing it by people buying out his classes. That also might be true too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:19:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -Ascent-: All that training is out there you just have to look. In an LE context I think it’s never been more relevant to know have to do CQB at different team levels. Think active shooter situations where the tactics have changed... Having been to that training in the .mil, I’m not interested in looking for it. Even if I hadn’t, knowing what I know now, I would still spend most of my time on the hard skills of shooting. Also didn’t realize we’d jumped to CQB. That’s a good one to listen to one of Matt Pranka’s podcasts on. He’s the expert there. Sorry I didn’t really read the rest - this thread is all over the place. For real, sorry for being dismissive. But I don't think anyone’s getting convinced of anything in this thread and anyone looking for information on training prolly checked out of this one a while ago. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:22:42 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: Having been to that training in the .mil, I’m not interested in looking for it. Even if I hadn’t, knowing what I know now, I would still spend most of my time on the hard skills of shooting. Also didn’t realize we’d jumped to CQB. That’s a good one to listen to one of Matt Pranka’s podcasts on. He’s the expert there. Sorry I didn’t really read the rest - this thread is all over the place. For real, sorry for being dismissive. But I don't think anyone’s getting convinced of anything in this thread and anyone looking for information on training prolly checked out of this one a while ago. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By echofivekilo: Originally Posted By -Ascent-: All that training is out there you just have to look. In an LE context I think it’s never been more relevant to know have to do CQB at different team levels. Think active shooter situations where the tactics have changed... Having been to that training in the .mil, I’m not interested in looking for it. Even if I hadn’t, knowing what I know now, I would still spend most of my time on the hard skills of shooting. Also didn’t realize we’d jumped to CQB. That’s a good one to listen to one of Matt Pranka’s podcasts on. He’s the expert there. Sorry I didn’t really read the rest - this thread is all over the place. For real, sorry for being dismissive. But I don't think anyone’s getting convinced of anything in this thread and anyone looking for information on training prolly checked out of this one a while ago. Infantry tactics and CQB go hand in hand. Sorry didn’t read the rest because reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:24:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: PacNW5]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -Ascent-: You act like you never trained anyone. How do you get people to buy into what you’re saying or you as an instructor. Most people want story time. They want to hear how what you’re teaching is relevant to the experiences you have had. Given the popularity of videos with titles like 'How to shoot a pistol by a Navy Seal' and 'How to shoot like Israeli Special Forces', this would seem to be the case. Marketing sells. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:37:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Given the popularity of videos with titles like 'How to shoot a pistol by a Navy Seal' and 'How to shoot like Israeli Special Forces', this would seem to be the case. Marketing sells.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:46:28 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Given the popularity of videos with titles like 'How to shoot a pistol by a Navy Seal' and 'How to shoot like Israeli Special Forces', this would seem to be the case. Marketing sells. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Originally Posted By -Ascent-: You act like you never trained anyone. How do you get people to buy into what you’re saying or you as an instructor. Most people want story time. They want to hear how what you’re teaching is relevant to the experiences you have had. Given the popularity of videos with titles like 'How to shoot a pistol by a Navy Seal' and 'How to shoot like Israeli Special Forces', this would seem to be the case. Marketing sells. I agree marketing sells. How to shoot with a Navy Seal, Grip technique with world champion Jerry Miculek, Cornering with Super cross champion Jett Lawrence. Every genre has it. Shooting is no exception. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:47:50 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Obviously improving performance is a good thing. Some methods of trying to improve performance are objectively more effective than others, and some metrics of performance are objectively more relevant than others. How would the timmays be able to objectively measure performance gains, They don't train with timers and accuracy doesn't matter....what other metric is there....oh yeah best costume. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 9:54:07 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BaconFat: How would the timmays be able to objectively measure performance gains, They don't train with timers and accuracy doesn't matter....what other metric is there....oh yeah best costume. Whoever can stuff the most chemlights in their AOR1 crye precision underpants. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 10:09:50 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: 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. 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 10:15:29 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BaconFat: How would the timmays be able to objectively measure performance gains, They don't train with timers and accuracy doesn't matter....what other metric is there....oh yeah best costume. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BaconFat: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Obviously improving performance is a good thing. Some methods of trying to improve performance are objectively more effective than others, and some metrics of performance are objectively more relevant than others. How would the timmays be able to objectively measure performance gains, They don't train with timers and accuracy doesn't matter....what other metric is there....oh yeah best costume. Nice strawman. Go ahead and point out where anyone said accuracy doesn't matter. Force on force training exists. There are ways to evaluate it. But go on and continue your massive display of ignorance. It's pretty entertaining. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 10:22:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: BaconFat]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Nice strawman. Go ahead and point out where anyone said accuracy doesn't matter. Force on force training exists. There are ways to evaluate it. But go on and continue your massive display of ignorance. It's pretty entertaining. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Nice strawman. Go ahead and point out where anyone said accuracy doesn't matter. Force on force training exists. There are ways to evaluate it. But go on and continue your massive display of ignorance. It's pretty entertaining. You mean here Originally Posted By ARCNA442: Conversely, if you did all those other things perfectly, your gunfight becomes a simple shooting that you'll win no matter how inaccurate you are. You watch to many john wick movies in your mom's basement. Laying down suppressive fire in a self defense shooting.  The fantasies you Timmays have are quite entertaining....but I guess you have to do something instead of actually learning to shoot. It is amazing the theories you come up with to justify your lack of skill.This is some Gecko45 level shit you got going on |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 11:15:44 AM EDT
[#46]
the best pistol shooters in the world are USPSA Grand Masters SOF-D hires them to learn to shoot better and faster. Suppresive fire, CQB, bounding overwatch, land nav, rappelling, etc. are not taught by USPSA GM's It's that fucking simple.  Mike Voight  How civilian shooting matches make better Green Berets. Competitive shooting in Special Forces. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 11:17:48 AM EDT
[#47]
So much of this thread, and the initial subject matter is people talking past each other.
Some people are just as interested in the why as the how. Travis delves pretty deep into the why of things. Does that help an individual shooter in a class? Not necessarily but it does expand the overall knowledge base. A lot of people have no interest in the why, just the how. Nothing wrong with that as it streamlines their training and allows them to focus resources better. And just like the comp shooting vs tactical shooting, the Venn diagrams have a lot of overlap but we often see arguments evolve around the misaligned portions and how important they are to the other side. In the end we should all evaluate our needs/desires and available resources. Once you have done that, determine which course of action is most efficient for you to follow. I dare say arguing on the internet is never the most efficient allocation of time yet here we all are.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 11:30:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 11:50:26 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BaconFat: How would the timmays be able to objectively measure performance gains, They don't train with timers and accuracy doesn't matter....what other metric is there....oh yeah best costume. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BaconFat: Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles: Obviously improving performance is a good thing. Some methods of trying to improve performance are objectively more effective than others, and some metrics of performance are objectively more relevant than others. How would the timmays be able to objectively measure performance gains, They don't train with timers and accuracy doesn't matter....what other metric is there....oh yeah best costume. I’ve been in plenty of “tactical” classes that incorporated timers or stop watches. Starting the training day with a timed 1-mile run cross country run with all your equipment is a great way to sort out who needs to fix their mag carriers and holsters. Live fire obstacle course is timed. Live fire fireman’s carry is timed. Putting on tourniquet’s is timed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 11:58:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -Ascent-: All that training is out there you just have to look. In an LE context I think it’s never been more relevant to know have to do CQB at different team levels. Think active shooter situations where the tactics have changed from cordon to assault. Now you got a handful of patrol officers with carbines clearing buildings. There are principles that can be taken from military training for self defense. Situation awareness, proper use of cover, understanding cover expires- knowing when expired cover is worse than concealment, how to move through your house to get to your kids. Competition and timer helping you build your balance of speed and accuracy. After you have a solid bed rock of fundamentals and safety. There is knowledge to be gathered at every type of training. For either side of the argument to blow the other side off is kinda ridiculous. The bases of the 2A isn’t just self defense. I know that’s not what’s be said directly but some people want to know how to do all those infantry task because they believe that’s why the 2A exists. Is Travis taking sports science to deeply into basic shooting. Maybe he is but is he being justified in doing it by people buying out his classes. That also might be true too. The problem is tactical instructors teaching bad shooting fundamentals... thats what Stoeger is calling them out on. He doesn't teach CQB... he doesn't teach maneuver warfare. He teaches people what they need to do to improve their shooting... and he calls out these morons when they teach stuff that is bad for their students shooting skills.... And every time, there's responses about all this tactical nonsense that has nothing to do with what those instructors are being called out for. |
|
|
|
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.
