What constitutes 'realistic' training? What is it based on? Is what is 'realistic' training for a LEO, appropriate or aplicable to a citizen with a CCW?
Eastern thought meets Western GunFighting
Personal Defense Network Forum » Training
What is 'realistic' training?
(15 posts)-
# Posted 1 year ago
-
I like to use, “what is your purpose”. What authority do you have? Are you Civilian, LE, Military, Security, or Private Military Contractor? Using the I.C.E. Possible, Plausible, or Probable Concepts, you can see what is plausible for training. An Average Joe Civilian will typically be in the ambush moment scenario, and may not always have the authority, ability, or opportunity to go direct or “Hunt”. The hunt could be plausible but is not probable. For the sake of time I would concentrate on the probable for Average Joe, and plausible when he/ she can confidently and competently handle the probable.
Those with authority who will hunt will also be in repetitive ambush moments while hunting. Therefore their realistic training takes on a wider range of scenarios, and even those scenarios can be filtered through the Plausibility Concept. This will keep from wasting time or repetitive training.
For the Average Joe, simple reactive drills that require lateral movement and unexpected shots that push the limits of speed and precision.
Visualize, Visualize, Visualize.
If that doesn’t keep you busy, do it all again with your cell phone in your hand and with cover. Hope that helps, didn’t mean to dump the Kool-Aid on you but, it is what it is.# Posted 1 year ago -
ZenGunFighter wrote:
What constitutes 'realistic' training? What is it based on? Is what is 'realistic' training for a LEO, appropriate or aplicable to a citizen with a CCW?What do YOU think it is?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com# Posted 1 year ago -
Short of actually being an active participant in real, unscripted, spur of the moment gunfights, any other training could actually be argued to be unrealistic. Even the best FoF courses have safety limitations and rules. Gunfights, on the other hand, are not limited by those criteria.
Chris S.
NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor# Posted 1 year ago -
GrantCunningham wrote:
ZenGunFighter wrote:
What constitutes 'realistic' training? What is it based on? Is what is 'realistic' training for a LEO, appropriate or aplicable to a citizen with a CCW?
What do YOU think it is?Well, as Rob encourages, I'm questioning what we are doing. It's good to check yourself once in a while.
With LE training we have it easy. We have court decisions like Papow v. Margate and Garner v. Tennesse, we have statistics complied by the FBI, DOJ, NYC and others, and we have dashboard cams.
So figuring out what is 'realistic' and 'relevant' training for LE isn't too hard.But what about civilians? Who is compiling data? Who is doing statistics? I think alot of what we are doing is either based on anecdotal evidence or the training doesn't differentiate between civies and LE.
How many lethal force incidents that a civilian faces are at home?
How many on the street? Where?
What time of day?
How many badguys?
How are they armed?
etc.Should we be teaching civilians the same exact things as LE?
Obviously, there is some cross over. Particularly with the basics. I guess I'm more concened with 'tactics'I am always painfully aware that what we instructors teach our students can kill them. With that foremost in my mind, I'm always questioning, to make sure I'm doing the best I can by my students.
That's why I brought it up for discussion amongst this august body :)Eastern thought meets Western GunFighting# Posted 1 year ago -
ZenGunFighter wrote:
Well, as Rob encourages, I'm questioning what we are doing. It's good to check yourself once in a while.
With LE training we have it easy. We have court decisions like Papow v. Margate and Garner v. Tennesse, we have statistics complied by the FBI, DOJ, NYC and others, and we have dashboard cams.
So figuring out what is 'realistic' and 'relevant' training for LE isn't too hard.
But what about civilians? Who is compiling data? Who is doing statistics? I think alot of what we are doing is either based on anecdotal evidence or the training doesn't differentiate between civies and LE.
How many lethal force incidents that a civilian faces are at home?
How many on the street? Where?
What time of day?
How many badguys?
How are they armed?
etc.
Should we be teaching civilians the same exact things as LE?
Obviously, there is some cross over. Particularly with the basics. I guess I'm more concened with 'tactics'
I am always painfully aware that what we instructors teach our students can kill them. With that foremost in my mind, I'm always questioning, to make sure I'm doing the best I can by my students.
That's why I brought it up for discussion amongst this august body :)Well, I do find that some of the civilian training programs cause one to step back and do a little "head scratching", to say the least. Civilian courses that spend valuable time covering things like dynamic entries, urban combat rifle techniques, and some of the team drills seem to me to be mostly irrelevant to the real-world environment that the overwhelming majority of armed citizens live and conduct their business in every day. Face it, most armed civilians spend their time outside their homes armed with only one, perhaps two, handgun(s) of some variety or another (most of us don't walk around with an AR slung over our shoulder). As a general rule, we should be primarily focused on avoidance and deescalation as opposed to getting into situations that would call for us to perform dynamic entries or engage in rifle combat on city streets.
At the very least, we should be making sure to manage our training resources so as to maximize the benefit we gain from said training. There is little that is more wasteful than spending time and money learning how to do something you'll never have to do.
Chris S.
NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor# Posted 1 year ago -
The trouble with most civilian training is you can't practice it when you get home. Most don't have a backyard range. At the local range they won't let you draw from a holster much less move this way and that nor fire a string of multiple shots as fast as you can while trying to obtain combat accuracy.
# Posted 1 year ago -
cshoff wrote:
ZenGunFighter wrote:
There is little that is more wasteful than spending time and money learning how to do something you'll never have to do.What is worse is it might encourage one to do something that they ought not.
In my training, I will have the student talk to the target. I'll be the voice of the badguy. If I think the student does a good job of trying to de-escalate, then he doesn't have to shoot.
In our training, how many times do we draw and NOT shoot?
In 'reality' ?
Whether LE or civilians, the 'reality' is that you won't need to pull the trigger. Presentation of the firearm is enough.Eastern thought meets Western GunFighting# Posted 1 year ago -
ZenGunFighter wrote:
What is worse is it might encourage one to do something that they ought not.
In my training, I will have the student talk to the target. I'll be the voice of the badguy. If I think the student does a good job of trying to de-escalate, then he doesn't have to shoot.
In our training, how many times do we draw and NOT shoot?
In 'reality' ?
Whether LE or civilians, the 'reality' is that you won't need to pull the trigger. Presentation of the firearm is enough.While that may be statistically true, we all know we can never count on the mere presence of a firearm to cause a BG to cease his/her hostilities, especially when we factor in the likelihood that this person will be high on drugs or alcohol, or will be running with multiple accomplices. It certainly makes sense to spend some time practicing scenarios that do not require us to fire our gun in the end and avoidance scenarios that don't necessarily require us to draw our gun at all, but we definitely don't want to de-emphasize shooting skills that may save our lives.
Chris S.
NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor# Posted 1 year ago -
"Realistic" training is nothing more than adding context to what you're doing. It's independent of your status (LEO vs. private citizen vs. military.)
It's important to understand that one can experience reality-based training without it appearing all that realistic, and one can participate in very realistic training with it having no context whatsoever.
It's easy to get enamored with the notion that realistic training needs props and shoothouses and role-players and all the other toys that the "cool kids" get to play with. In fact one can get the benefit of reality-based training with nothing more than masking tape, a tape measure, some long sticks, and the ability to visualize the scenario which you're replicating.
If you want to see it in action, go back and watch the last season of The Best Defense - they did many such scenarios on the range.
The key is to give the mind enough anchor points onto which it can recreate the context it needs.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Gunsmith, Trainer, Writer
Combat Focus Shooting (tm) Instructor
-
http://www.grantcunningham.com# Posted 1 year ago -
GrantCunningham wrote:
"Realistic" training is nothing more than adding context to what you're doing. It's independent of your status (LEO vs. private citizen vs. military.)
It's important to understand that one can experience reality-based training without it appearing all that realistic, and one can participate in very realistic training with it having no context whatsoever.
It's easy to get enamored with the notion that realistic training needs props and shoothouses and role-players and all the other toys that the "cool kids" get to play with. In fact one can get the benefit of reality-based training with nothing more than masking tape, a tape measure, some long sticks, and the ability to visualize the scenario which you're replicating.
If you want to see it in action, go back and watch the last season of The Best Defense - they did many such scenarios on the range.
The key is to give the mind enough anchor points onto which it can recreate the context it needs.It all depends on how "realistic" you care to simulate in your training. Even through visualization and defined anchor points, one cannot simulate what an active/reactive human being may or may not do when confronted with various stimuli. However, what you are suggesting definitely has merit. I like to use a training partner who can spontaneously "call the shots" while I run through various drills that are designed to simulate real-life scenarios that one could find him/herself in on any given day. Having a live person randomly select a target for a shoot/no shoot action, IMO, requires the shooter to exercise sound decision making skills while building solid defensive shooting fundamentals at the same time.
Chris S.
NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor# Posted 1 year ago -
As others have alluded to, I think it comes down to CONTEXT. The realism of skill sets should be pretty straightforward. Explosive Breaching is pretty narrow in terms of who it is "realistic" for, but "low light shooting" is pretty universal.
But some skills fall into a gray area and "reality" might be based on the way the skills are being taught to be used. If you're going to a full on sniper course and you're not LE/Mil/Private Security, you're probably not training in context... but a "precision rifle" course might be the right thing for someone looking to develop certain types of hunting skill.
-RJP
# Posted 1 year ago -
I think Rob hit it on the head with Training in Context. A lot of it has to do with your skill level and the skill level of your instructor as well. I was in the Army, a retired police officer, and was in Martial arts, but that does not make me a good instructor I could share some of the training I have received and it may give you the basics on quite a few things, but I tell friends and family I would rather see them go to a qualified Instructor. I think in reality it has to do with your skill level, your ability to lean waht is being taught, and the knowledge of the person teaching.
Just my thoughts,
Ryan
Ryan Sharrer
Live your Life without Fear, fight like you Train.# Posted 1 year ago -
man, that cell phone is going in my pocket or on the GROUND, at the first sign of real trouble! I will have problems enough handling a lethal attack with both hands available. If it's not lethal, why is your gun "out", eh? I may have the phone out, with my other hand in my pocket, on the gun, calling the cops or LOOKING like I'm doing so, BEFORE things get radical, but once they turn into an actual attack, I want both hands available, for shooting, blocking blows, striking, breaking the force of my fall, etc. Cops aint getting there in time to do squat, anyway, so the phone means very, very little, once a "bluff" fails.
# Posted 3 months ago -
The Dept of Justice's Annual Crime Survey answers a lot of the questions about who, where, what, etc, on attacks. Check it out on their website. It's a pita to find and actually get data out of, but the info is there.
# Posted 3 months ago
Reply
You must Log In to post.