Training Scars

[ExurbanKevin]

I loved the article that Michael linked to in the blog this weekend, and having gone thru Gabe's training, it makes a lot of sense.

Ran into another training scar this weekend shooting 3 Gun. I'm used to the IMA 3 Gun rules that count a target as hit if there are two shots in anywhere on paper or one in the A-Zone, but the club I shoot at now uses NRA "tombstone" targets, counting the first two rings as down 0, the next as -1 and the rest of the target as down 3. I blew thru the course, concentrating just enough to get my two hits and moving on to the next target.

And I lost a LOT of points because I was placing hits in the down three zone left, right and center.

Whoops.

Shooting one type of target for many years put me behind the eight ball when I moved to a different target that placed an emphasis on accuracy over speed.

As I said, whoops.

[JC5123]

Got a good group of guys that I train with frequently. We usually shoot VTAC targets. (I buy them buy the 100 ct.) One thing that frustrates me, is that someone will say "anything on the target counts." I fight this mentality relentlessly. My thoughts are go for the A zone EVERY TIME or don't bother. Anyone who has used these targets knows that the A zone on them is not particularly small, especially when running drills inside of 20 yds.

Can anyone explain to me where the idea comes from that any hit counts? Or am I just being a cranky old fart insisting that accuracy is more important than speed?

[alfsauve]

Can anyone explain to me where the idea comes from that any hit counts? Or am I just being a cranky old fart insisting that accuracy is more important than speed?

I vote for the later. 


But then, I've become a COF, too.     I tend to look down, snob that I am, on people shooting zombie targets and congratulating themselves on spraying their rounds all over the paper.

[alfsauve]

Back on Kevin's subject, in shooting club IDPA matches, I try, when permitted by the Course-of-Fire, to apply the Movement-obliquely-towards-target when I can.   Even if it means taking a long path and more time.   

One RO wasn't happy that instead of moving W to E,  I moved NE then SW.  I pointed out that I did it all safely, COF only said shoot while moving, and there was no clearly defined shooting area or balkline.

I'll have to think about the Move-Then-Draw.  And check the videos of course.

[ExurbanKevin]

Not sure about the origin of "any hit anywhere counts" as that pre-dates my involvement with 3 Gun, but I think the emphasis that practical shooting places on accuracy can be a hinderance at times.

An example:

Alf latched onto Gabe's movement techniques a lot faster than I did when we did our show together. I had the "training scar" of the IDPA duck walk, and I was going too slow. I couldn't force myself to speed things up to the level that Gabe wanted, and until he pointed the frame of his Glock at me, I didn't get it. After that, I did. When someone has drawn down on you, that's the time for dynamic movement and volume of fire: A one-inch group can wait until you get on the practice range.

[Sponsor]

[les snyder]

I think a lot depends on your perception of need... in his former job, Kyle Lamb of Viking Tactics needed to be more precise in his shot placement, than say I would shooting a USPSA practical shooting game.... at a Ga State match or Area 6 match, Dave Dawson grabbed me and said I needed to watch a couple of guys shoot the standards... I got there in time to watch Sgt First Class Matt Rierson (KIA, Mogadishu, Somalia) shoot 5 "As" on an IPSC target at 50y in 6 seconds....using a 1911 in .45 caliber...that was the first time I had the pleasure of watching Sgt Rierson, and Larry Vickers... I met Kyle some time later....

[Michael Bane]

Les...weren't there some "2 hits to neutralize" matches back in the mid-1980s?

I think modern 3-Gun is in many ways 3 or 4 separate sports masquerading as one. Most of the "bandit" matches have (or at least had) their own rules, scoring and structure. 3-GUN NATION moved toward a common denominator based on ease of filming, less need for longer ranges and a more dynamic structure (e.g. speed speed speed). And in this context I believe the "2 hits to neutralize" scoring system was institutionalized not because it was reflective of the Real World, but because it was faster/easier to score.

You could make a case that when dealing with rifle cartridges, 2 hits anywhere will take the aggressor out of the fight (a case I'd probably feel a LOT more comfortable making if the rifle's caliber started with a .30).

I think the balance between accuracy, power and speed has always been a part of the shooting sports, immortalized, if you will, by Jeff Cooper's "D-V-C" acronym. Some instructors drifted away from DVC into the foggier realm of "combat accuracy." There is, unfortunately, a very human tendency to skew away from the things that are hard, marksmanship, to things are are less hard, getting the hits somewhere on the target.

I've always thought the SF guys I've shot with like Kyle are the living embodiment of Brian Enos' dictum of "See what you need to see."

And yes, we're all crank old farts...

Michael B

[les snyder]

Michael... I don't remember back to how the Naples Swamp Romp was scored....most of the local matches from the mid 90s on, used a one "A" or 6 points (5/4/2 on an IPSC target)  until the USPSA multigun rules came out a couple of years ago... we shoot a .22lr (rifle) and center fire pistol and shotgun match at Ben's and have standardized on the USPSA multigun rules ...IIRC all four of the North Carolina Tactical matches I shot used some variation of the Vickers scoring requiring two hits, where C and D hits were time added (1/2sec and 1 1/2 sec)... same with all six of the Ft Benning matches that put a premium on more accuracy...

did I mention how hot it gets in Frostproof at the end of June... will you be down for the World Shoot?

[JC5123]

Or am I just being a cranky old fart insisting that accuracy is more important than speed?

I should modify my statement to say that I push for accuracy first. Once you are consistently getting the hits, then speed up. I realize of course, that in a critical situation my accuracy will most likely go to crap. However my belief is that the more accurate I am to start with, the less inaccurate I will be when it counts. Yea, I think that makes sense. 

[ExurbanKevin]

I should modify my statement to say that I push for accuracy first. Once you are consistently getting the hits, then speed up.

Definitely agree with that, based on my experience and the experience of other shooters I've seen on the range. A few years back at Area 2 there was a new revolver shooter who took 150 seconds per stage, but every target had a figure eight on it from his two shots.

Two years later, he won his division. Learning speed after accuracy is (IMO) easier than learning accuracy after speed.