Safety vs training defensively

[LoriW]

Last Sunday I went to The Poseidon Experience with a group of fellow Well Armed Woman members. During part of the experience one of the instructor's walked in front of us on the line and I are several other ladies automatically dropped our SIRT guns into low ready. We had to struggle to keep them raised and on target with a person in front of the firing line. This experience came up during a Facebook conversation and I was asked if this reaction would come into play in a defensive situation. How would you train for this? What say you INGO?

 

[actaeon277]

My brothers in the Army and Marines told me that it's easier to drop that habit once someone's trying to kill you.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Last Sunday I went to The Poseidon Experience with a group of fellow Well Armed Woman members. During part of the experience one of the instructor's walked in front of us on the line and I are several other ladies automatically dropped our SIRT guns into low ready. We had to struggle to keep them raised and on target with a person in front of the firing line. This experience came up during a Facebook conversation and I was asked if this reaction would come into play in a defensive situation. How would you train for this? What say you INGO?

I suspect that would be a common response since so many of us have been trained on 180 degree lines.

That is a drawback to training and practicing on a 180 line. You become conditioned to not having people in your front arc while firing. Some schools conduct training to reduce this problem and some people get really stressed out about it. The "downrange photographer" bit associated with Tactical Response is part of their efforts to reduce this problem. Some of the instruction I received at their school went quite a bit beyond downrange photography and I feel better educated for the experience.

I understand the need to keep training and practice safe and I understand the reality that we might need to shoot someone standing next to someone we cannot shoot. I have taken classes that observe a very strict 180 line and classes that have people downrange while you are firing. I think there is a place for both in defensive training.

The classes I have taken that best deal with overcoming the problem you experienced would be Mindset Lab's Intro to Force on Force and Tactical Response's Fighting Pistol and Advanced Fighting Pistol.

 

[Shay]

The classes I have taken that best deal with overcoming the problem you experienced would be Mindset Lab's Intro to Force on Force and Tactical Response's Fighting Pistol and Advanced Fighting Pistol.

I think you'll agree that Advanced Fighting Pistol takes 360 degree live-fire to another level entirely. And thank you for recommending Mindset Lab to help overcome this issue through training.

Now, from the OP's description, I think NOT pointing a gun (SIRT) at the instructor sounds like the right answer in that situation. Why point a gun at someone who doesn't need to have a gun pointed at them? Or is the person just in front of the "firing line" but not in front of the muzzles?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have never had trouble making the distinction on the fly between administrative "don't point at that person", force on force "ok to point at that person, and "oh crap that guy may need to be shot let's point a gun at him" situations in real world incidents. I suspect you won't either, but realistic FoF is the place to find out.

 

[MohawkSlim]

A guy I take shootin advice from says he doesn't like to play "shooting games" because they instill bad habits. He wants every single thing he does with a gun in his hand to be the thing he needs to do if his life depends on it. He wants that muscle memory - his body's natural reaction after thousands upon thousands of repetitions - to be the habit that is most effective and keeps him alive.

It's important to remember many of the training situations we find ourselves in are NOT designed to be defensive in nature. They may be "intro to firearms" or "how to pass a short class to get your permit" or even something more operator-worthy like, "dynamic tactical defensive fighting pistol operations." But 9 times out of 10, the classes are designed almost entirely with safety and efficiency of the class in mind, and not the actual defensive skill building (DANGER!) needed to replicate real world scenarios.

As someone advancing through the process of going from casual firearms enthusiast (noob) to expert (space shuttle door gunner) you'll notice the "rules" get a lot less strict because those participating in the training are inherently more safety-conscious and competent in the operation of not only their firearms, but their defensive actions. The rules are still followed - loaded guns aren't pointed directly at people, fingers stay off the triggers until it's time to shoot, but the "rules" are tossed out almost entirely.

Ideally, you want to get here -

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A guy I take shootin advice from says he doesn't like to play "shooting games" because they instill bad habits. He wants every single thing he does with a gun in his hand to be the thing he needs to do if his life depends on it. He wants that muscle memory - his body's natural reaction after thousands upon thousands of repetitions - to be the habit that is most effective and keeps him alive.

It's important to remember many of the training situations we find ourselves in are NOT designed to be defensive in nature. They may be "intro to firearms" or "how to pass a short class to get your permit" or even something more operator-worthy like, "dynamic tactical defensive fighting pistol operations." But 9 times out of 10, the classes are designed almost entirely with safety and efficiency of the class in mind, and not the actual defensive skill building (DANGER!) needed to replicate real world scenarios.

As someone advancing through the process of going from casual firearms enthusiast (noob) to expert (space shuttle door gunner) you'll notice the "rules" get a lot less strict because those participating in the training are inherently more safety-conscious and competent in the operation of not only their firearms, but their defensive actions. The rules are still followed - loaded guns aren't pointed directly at people, fingers stay off the triggers until it's time to shoot, but the "rules" are tossed out almost entirely.

Ideally, you want to get here -
View attachment 42554

There is a place for administrative gun handling. There is a place for fundamentals work. There is a place for dry fire. There is a place for FoF training. Etc. Every single type of training builds bad habits...but it also builds good habits and by having a good mix you can mitigate the bad habits. If someone handled a gun like their life was on the line every time they handled it, they'd never get a chance to do the things that make good shooters or good fighters. Do boxers do nothing but spar in training? No. Do football players play the game constantly in training? No. Do race car drivers just drive around the track as fast as they can to train? No. Do musicians do nothing but play the songs they intend to perform? No. So WTF would you learn gunfighting by doing nothing but pretending every time you touch the gun you're in a gunfight?

You're free to look into reviews of the class I put on with Coach. There are very few things changed for the sake of safety, and every scenario we use is a real shooting that I investigated personally. There are no hypotheticals. The funny thing is...we don't have to change much to keep things safe. Why? Well, because despite the 360 world it's really freaking rare for someone to be attacked from 360 degrees at the same time. Someone who's robbing you has your attention and you will likely be facing them, after all. Battlefield training? Yeah, probably more of a concern. Defensive civilian shooting? You can get a lot done on the boring ol' square range. Add in some simuntion FoF, and you're as prepared as most folks are ever going to get.

 

[Coach]

This could become a great thread or it could be another food fight that could mirror issues we have beaten to death before. I hope it becomes a great thread.

Some observations in general and a few opinions:
1) Guns are inherently dangerous. SIRT pistols, blue guns and gun shaped pop tarts are not.
2) Training needs account for safety. Both on the training field and in the field when those techniques are put into practice.
3) There is never a situation when the four rules of gun safety/ handling need to be ignored. If they are that is choice not a need.
4) Every time you handle a gun you are building habits. There is no reason to build bad habits. (not even in competition)
5) The world is 360 degrees but that does not mean a muzzle has to sweep 360 degrees.
6) Register position is the responsible gunman's friend.
7) Training safety and procedures all have risk versus reward ramifications. Those should be carefully considered by the instructor and the student.
8) Good training offers few if any training scars.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To shamelessly plagiarize from someone who's a much better shooter than me:

[h=2]Training Scars You Might Get From Shooting Competition[/h]Dumping partially-filled magazines on the ground instead of retaining them

Misidentification of material suitable for use as cover

Nonexistent or poor use of 'cover'

Standing in open area exposed to multiple adversaries

Failure to engage adversaries through light barriers

Rushing toward known threats at maximum speed instead of retreating or fortifying current position

Shooting adversaries twice only

Superficial or nonexistent thread ID and assessment

Nonexistent representation of opposing will by adversaries/cardboard don't shoot back or maneuver against your position and flank you

Lack of 'hard break'/follow through - hurrying to unload

Nonexistent post-shooting procedure

Failure to get gun fully loaded before holstering

Unrealistic equipment - 'game' gun, belt, etc.

Inability to initiate action in absence of a timer beep

Action unconsciously and unintentionally initiated when a beep is heard outside of the game

Unrealistic WHO draw (draw with strong hand, transfer to support hand)

Unrealistic SHO and WHO malfunction clearance (both hands used)

All adversaries in known locations at start of stage/engagement

[h=2]Training Scars You Might Get From Tactical Training[/h]
Unrealistic equipment - 'class' gun, belt, etc.

Unrealistic quantity of magazines carried for class

Knee/elbow pads used in class but not in life

Nonexistent representation of opposing will by adversaries/cardboard don't shoot back or maneuver against your position and flank you

Misidentification of material suitable for use as cover

Failure to engage adversaries through light barriers

Only taking one step instead of a more radical amount of movement during reloads and malfunction clearance (when on a line with other students)

Practicing to clear double feeds or otherwise manipulate gun within a distance that fails to address a threat aggressing/closing distance while gun is down

Dunning-Krueger effect on a person's estimation of their own skill level

Reverse Dunning-Krueger effect on a person's estimation of their own skill level - head shots cannot realistically be made, hit ratio will be ~20% at best, won't be able to see or use sights, shooting will be done one-handed despite training to the contrary, etc.

'Worst case is the norm' - two is one, one is none, you better be able to clear a double-feed weak hand only while supine and backwards in a ditch, partial magazines must be retained in case you fire your other 61 rounds and need those two rounds that you dropped

Taking a knee in the open

Known extreme likelihood of needing to use force/deadly force when entering a scenario or FOF

Over-representation of malfunction rate when dummy rounds are introduced

Under-representation of reload rate if post-shooting procedure (topping off) is emphasized

Under-representation of stovepipe/failure to eject malfunctions that require rolling the gun on its side in order to clear with tap-rack

Superficial or nonexistent threat ID and assessment

Inability to initiate action in absence of a range command to do so

Action unconsciously and unintentionally initiated when a range command is heard outside of training


Now, granted, some of those are tongue in cheek and I don't necessarily agree with 100% of them, but they are a reminder that everything has limitations. As long as you recognize those limitations, there's no reason you can't avoid the majority of the issues. I usually compare it to dry fire. Dry fire isn't realistic. There's no recoil to control. There's no "shoot/no shoot" decision, there's no "post conflict" blah-blah-blah...but not many folks seem to think dry fire doesn't make people better shooters. The idea "competition will get you killed" doesn't ring true with me, but you should be aware of the limitations just like any other aspect of training or practice.

 

[actaeon277]

Well BBI, I'm not sure how you get around targets not shooting back.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well BBI, I'm not sure how you get around targets not shooting back.

Simunitions.

I really think our department has done as well as it has in gunfights because of scenario training. Our range staff is *really* good about using simunitions to recreate actual events. Gunfights are about a lot more than shooting, and scenario based training and Simunitions provides a lot of that. If well done, it incorporates decision making, etc. I can tell you it's fairly stressful going in, which is as designed.

 

[Coach]

To shamelessly plagiarize from someone who's a much better shooter than me:

Training Scars You Might Get From Shooting Competition


Might being the key word.

Training Scars You Might Get From Tactical Training


Might being the key word.

As long as you recognize those limitations, there's no reason you can't avoid the majority of the issues. you should be aware of the limitations just like any other aspect of training or practice

Amen.

These are the most key statements IMHO.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Simunitions.

I really think our department has done as well as it has in gunfights because of scenario training. Our range staff is *really* good about using simunitions to recreate actual events. Gunfights are about a lot more than shooting, and scenario based training and Simunitions provides a lot of that. If well done, it incorporates decision making, etc. I can tell you it's fairly stressful going in, which is as designed.

I second that. We've done some scenarios with UTM guns. Very good training. A more realistic and affordable option for the general public is airsoft.

 

[Never A Victim]

Last Sunday I went to The Poseidon Experience with a group of fellow Well Armed Woman members. During part of the experience one of the instructor's walked in front of us on the line and I are several other ladies automatically dropped our SIRT guns into low ready. We had to struggle to keep them raised and on target with a person in front of the firing line. This experience came up during a Facebook conversation and I was asked if this reaction would come into play in a defensive situation. How would you train for this? What say you INGO?

I had this same experience about 5 years ago, except we were shooting live rounds. And it changed my mindset forever.

I'm sure you all have seen the infamous "down range photographer" pictures from Tactical Response. This is where an instructor will stand next to your target while you are 3 yards away and take pictures of you while shooting. When this happened in my class, I initially struggled to shoot. But I later realized that this is a very real possibility in a gunfight. I also later realized I wasn't breaking any of the 4 firearm safety rules doing this either.

Shay is right, force on force will help you get over this. I would also tell you to take a Tactical Response course as well.

 

[GIJEW]

Lori if someone walks through your line of fire and you drop your weapon to 'low ready', that's just good gun handling and nothing to be concerned about--keep up the good work. But like others have pointed out, that shouldn't be confused with someone being generally down range. That said, you need to be aware of where those people are and where they're going and control your muzzle as appropriate. How about a complete AAR? It sounds like your group had a great learning experience!

 

[Shay]

I had this same experience about 5 years ago, except we were shooting live rounds. And it changed my mindset forever.

I'm sure you all have seen the infamous "down range photographer" pictures from Tactical Response. This is where an instructor will stand next to your target while you are 3 yards away and take pictures of you while shooting. When this happened in my class, I initially struggled to shoot. But I later realized that this is a very real possibility in a gunfight. I also later realized I wasn't breaking any of the 4 firearm safety rules doing this either.

Shay is right, force on force will help you get over this. I would also tell you to take a Tactical Response course as well.

Shooting bullets in public has real consequences. Being able to recreate some of those consequences on the live-fire range is tough, but Tactical Response does a great job of it.

 

[LoriW]

Or is the person just in front of the "firing line" but not in front of the muzzles?

He was purposefully walking in front of us to check grip/stance/sight alignment. He wanted us to shoot through him

I have never had trouble making the distinction on the fly between administrative "don't point at that person", force on force "ok to point at that person, and "oh crap that guy may need to be shot let's point a gun at him" situations in real world incidents. I suspect you won't either, but realistic FoF is the place to find out.

I don't necessarily expect to have trouble if I was in that type of situation. I'd actually not even thought about it until another lady from a different chapter asked me about it. She said she'd asked her instructor and the instructor first told her it wouldn't be a problem...and then thought about it and admitted she didn't know what would happen

Lori if someone walks through your line of fire and you drop your weapon to 'low ready', that's just good gun handling and nothing to be concerned about--keep up the good work. But like others have pointed out, that shouldn't be confused with someone being generally down range. That said, you need to be aware of where those people are and where they're going and control your muzzle as appropriate. How about a complete AAR?
It sounds like your group had a great learning experience!

Thank you! I'm not concerned about having good habits, not at all. And when I'm shooting, I'm usually keeping track of other people around me, just because I know I can't predict what other people will do 100% of the time lol. I'll write up an AAR and post it as a separate thread when I have a little more time. It was very interesting

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't necessarily expect to have trouble if I was in that type of situation. I'd actually not even thought about it until another lady from a different chapter asked me about it. She said she'd asked her instructor and the instructor first told her it wouldn't be a problem...and then thought about it and admitted she didn't know what would happen

It's a non-issue. I've trained with real people down range in very controlled situations in the military, and I've trained with simulated people down range or with real people and Simuntions in LE training. I've pulled and pointed with zero issue in real life settings, and frankly didn't see any real advantage to having actual people downrange. I think the Simuntions are much better at recreating the real feel, because it doesn't have to be so controlled and so static to remain safe.

Talking to people after shootings, the thing that makes people hesitate is the "what are the legal ramifications" and fear of the media, not considering the safety rules. If it is at play at all, its subconscious and relatively minor compared to the conscious decision making process.

 

[Drail]

WhenI was an RO we used to put on matches with LOTS of no shoots and only 2 or 3 hostiles. We would sequester shooters behind a portable wall and rearrange all of the targets so when the buzzer went off they would step out around the wall with no idea what they were about to see. IF you shot any non hostile target you had to do 10 laps around the parking lot. That adds up pretty quick. That will make you look hard at the targets. Using live people sounds like something the Chinese Army would do.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

WhenI was an RO we used to put on matches with LOTS of no shoots and only 2 or 3 hostiles. We would sequester shooters behind a portable wall and rearrange all of the targets so when the buzzer went off they would step out around the wall with no idea what they were about to see. IF you shot any non hostile target you had to do 10 laps around the parking lot. That adds up pretty quick. That will make you look hard at the targets. Using live people sounds like something the Chinese Army would do.

The US Army does it, or at least used to, when teaching cover fire and movement. It's extremely controlled. There are two lanes to a bunker, one soldier is in each lane, and you leapfrog forward from cover to cover taking turns shooting. It's not exactly the downrange photographer that's all the rage for some reason these days, but you do see your buddy and his shadowing instructor down range. The Army also has the idea of acceptable casualties, and training deaths do sometimes occur. When I was at Ft. Riley an engineer was killed and a second lost a hand when downrange and someone screwed the pooch with a .50.