How important do YOU think training is?

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Kinda answers your question doesn't it? If a professional, who supposedly has training, can't hit a target, wouldn't that lead you to think that a person with no training will be worse? Just supports the value of more training.

What question does it answer?

" If a professional, who supposedly has training, can't hit a target, wouldn't that lead you to think that...." formal basic training isn't much worthwhile for shot placement.

Is that the answer? Can't have it both ways, which is it?

I've been playing devil's advocate and just haven't seen an argument other than it's better than nothing. If you're selling a product that ain't much of a pitch.

 

[Mike Grasso]

Southern California is the "Holy Land" for Official Survival and Tactics Training, the "hit" ratio in LAPD is over 70%.
That is based on our training regiment.
That training, qualification and situational awareness all assist in what is needed to perform the Fine Motor Skills / Gross Motor Skills needed in a Fight or Flight incident.

Training the way you will play is paramount to operating in the incident.

The more stress, physical or mental, that can be added the better.

That all said, practice doesn't make perfect.
Perfect practice makes Perfect.

Aim small Miss Small.

I have had the opportunity to teach for many years here and as an adjunct at Gunsite.
I have seen 1000s of shooters, my advice...

Train hard, train often. No matter if you are LEO, Civilian, Military.

Life is a three legged table, they are DOA, Desire - Opportunity - Ability.

You need all three to function, you need all three to get hurt.

Train Train Train your Desire, the ability will follow.

And I hope you never get the opportunity.

Mike

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Is that a hit ratio per bullet fired, or a hit ratio on just hitting the bad guy at least once regardless how many shots are fired?

The LAPD study I read states... "In most years, about 75 percent of reported LAPD officer-involved shootings result in a person being hit..." So that would indicate 25% of officer involved shootings the bad guy(s) is not hit though xx number of shots were fired. It simply counts as one in the OIS-No Hit column. And for the 75% that did get hit, any number of shots may have missed. For example-- Officer fires 10 shots. One bullet strikes the bad guy. The shooting is simply counted into the OIS-Hit column. Right? In contrast, NYPD is shots fired. Does LAPD have a shots fired hit/miss ratio?

How would an incident like this be counted? Last year, this one incident involved several LAPD and over 100 shots fired at two innocent people. Two shots hit. http://www.thewire.com/national/201...ds-two-innocent-women-violated-policy/357728/

 

[Mike Grasso]

Once you weed out the extraneous data, the ratio of shots fired to actual hits on target averages to about 70% over the last 30 years.

That's how long I have been privvy to the data.

I have not included, Negligent discharges, dog shootings and the like.

It went down a bit during the Beretta / S&W days (SA/DA) went up with Glock, went down with the 40cal and back up with the 9mm.

Also weeded out any aberration shooting involving over 4 Officer's.

The actual standard is still 3-4 rounds, 5' - 10', with three being hit's.

Statistics are just a way to get a number to side with you.
Having been the Senior Tactics Instructor and reported to the OIS Board along with the OIC of the Unit you get a more intimate knowledge of the numbers.

That being said, ChattanoogaPhil makes an important point about training.

High speed low drag is a moot point if you can not perform the basic functions under stress, how to you create that stress?
The TTS instituted Force on Force Training utilizing SIMUNITION products.

After a two year period, our hit ratio climbed 15%.

These numbers were a "result" of this "style" of training, but the reality is that the training must be tailored EXACTLY to the person being trained, one on one.
And by a extremely competent experienced Instructor.
Then it has a "value".


Mike

Let me also apologize in advance if I come off a bit too strong on this subject.
I take UOF Training quite seriously and because of that I have a reputation I am proud of amongst Instructors.
I have been to many schools and have debunked as many techniques.
People say you need to learn to walk before you can run, they are wrong, most need to learn how to crawl.

 

[Rastoff]

What exactly do you mean when you're talking about shot placement matters?

I guess I thought it was obvious, but that's an assumption on my part and that's never good.

When I say "shot placement" I'm talking about where the projectile hits the target. If the target is a person, then the shot needs to be placed where it will disable them. Otherwise, the shot is not as effective as it could be.

 

[Rastoff]

Once you weed out the extraneous data, the ratio of shots fired to actual hits on target averages to about 70% over the last 30 years.

Does this accuracy report include the LAPD shooting over 100 rounds at a truck with two females in it and only hitting one of them twice?

Oooops! I didn't see that Phil had already commented on this same shooting. My bad.

 

[Rastoff]

Your argument seems to rely on that some training is better than none. I agree. But to convince someone of the value, you need to place a value on it.

I've been thinking about this and I've deleted quite a bit of typing trying to respond to this. I'm still not sure I know how.

How do you convince someone they need something they don't think they need?

There have been several comments about how the training is not necessary because most situations are ended by just presenting the gun. What if the bad guy is not intimidated by just seeing the gun?




In that unlikely event, quality training will mean the difference between living and death.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I guess I thought it was obvious, but that's an assumption on my part and that's never good.

When I say "shot placement" I'm talking about where the projectile hits the target. If the target is a person, then the shot needs to be placed where it will disable them. Otherwise, the shot is not as effective as it could be.

Thank you. Since professionals struggle to not miss entirely, it seems a bit beyond realistic expectations to be talking about average Joe Carry and the value of precision shot placement.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Are you sure about that?

Here is an example of LAPD report. About 70% of shootings result in a person being hit. It's not 70% of the bullets fired result in hitting a person.

http://www.oiglapd.org/Reports/6-27-12_UOF-Rprt1stQ-2012.pdf

 

[Mike Grasso]

Are you sure about that?

Here is an example of LAPD report. About 70% of shootings result in a person being hit. It's not 70% of the bullets fired result in hitting a person. If that were the case, then each time a person is hit it would have to be a one-shot immaculate shooting with zero misses. And every time a a person is not hit it would be just a one shot miss.

http://www.oiglapd.org/Reports/6-27-12_UOF-Rprt1stQ-2012.pdf

Yes. As I stated, anyone can manipulate statistics anyway they care to.
My statement stands, 30 years, not the past 7, release the aberrations and were able to look at the numbers, you would find it to be correct.

 

[Protected One]

I've been thinking about this and I've deleted quite a bit of typing trying to respond to this. I'm still not sure I know how.

How do you convince someone they need something they don't think they need?

There have been several comments about how the training is not necessary because most situations are ended by just presenting the gun. What if the bad guy is not intimidated by just seeing the gun?




In that unlikely event, quality training will mean the difference between living and death.

Your concluding statement is not necessarily true. Often, especially in home invasions and store robberies, a bg has a gun pulled on them but does not retreat - until bullets start flying! In the majority of those cases they are not hit, which seems to indicate that the shooter did NOT have quality training...but successfully defended themselves non the less.

 

[Waywatcher]

How important do YOU think training is?

Not very. Why? Because I'm being intellectually honest. The chances of ever needing to draw a CCW are incredibly slim. The chances of needing to fire it are slimmer yet. The chances the training would change the outcome is even slimmer yet. It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

That being said, I have taken multiple classes and would like to take more. Contradiction? Maybe. I don't think that quality training is ever a waste.

 

[Rastoff]

Thank you. Since professionals struggle to not miss entirely, it seems a bit beyond realistic expectations to be talking about average Joe Carry and the value of precision shot placement.

I think that in both situations, Joe Carry and LE, training makes the difference.

I know several retired cops. None of them did much practice or training. A couple received no training beyond their first academy. One I know qualified three times a year when he started and was down to once a year when he retired. I've seen several qualifications for police, FBI, Air Force and civilian CCW. Some are what I'd consider OK, but most are not really a test of what a person can do under fire. Most don't even include a timer. Adding the timer helps know how a person will respond under pressure at least a little.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I've been thinking about this and I've deleted quite a bit of typing trying to respond to this. I'm still not sure I know how.

How do you convince someone they need something they don't think they need?

Excellent question. Like I said a while back.... That seems like one heck of a difficult question to answer. And it doesn't seem to be getting an easier.

If NYPD scores a 17% hit ratio in gun fights, then how do you convince Joe carry to pay and train with the goal of doing as well as the professionals... missing 80% or more of his shots? That's hard to sell to someone.

On the flip side, my guess is that very few people believe they could empty their 5-shot revolver at a bad guy 15 feet away and not hit em. Even the old blue-haired ladies do much better than that their first time with a gun during mandatory TN HCP training. And even if you were to convince them how much different it is during high-stress and a moving target, it don't matter. They got their permit and gun. It provides them peace of mind and that's all they are after anyway. And if the unthinkable occurs, they'll just do the best they can.

 

[Rastoff]

Often, especially in home invasions and store robberies, a bg has a gun pulled on them but does not retreat - until bullets start flying!

Again, you're basing your premise on the hope that the mere threat of a gun, or the sound of a shot will send them running. What about those wild shots? Where do they go? Wouldn't it be better to hit the bad guy and stop him rather then send him running?

 

[Protected One]

Again, you're basing your premise on the hope that the mere threat of a gun, or the sound of a shot will send them running. What about those wild shots? Where do they go? Wouldn't it be better to hit the bad guy and stop him rather then send him running?

Not premise, but rather actual reported incidences. As I stated earlier, I would MUCH rather hear that 3rounds were place center mass, but from the fact remains that the primary goal of the homeowner was achieved - defending their home.

 

[Mike Grasso]

Wouldn't it be better to hit the bad guy and stop him rather then send him running?

The object of surviving an armed encounter is to "survive" it.
The object of any of these shootings and/or brandishing incidents is to stop the threat.

If the presence of the firearm stops the threat, if the discharge with no hits or the discharge with the hit stops the incident, it is a positive one.

I would venture to say there are hundreds of thousands of incidents monthly that involve firearms NOT being discharged but stopping the incident.

Again that being said, if the question was posed who would more likely be ready for an armed encounter, the scale goes to a LEO not based on his firearm training but his ability to see the situation and react to it timely.

If the question is about responding to the threat with a firearm, then it's really a strange answer.
I've seen a reigning world champion, fold up and get lit up.
I've seen Officer's I'd thought were totally squared away, fold.
I've seen little old ladies ten ring the suspect.

Based on my personal experiences,
training is very good if it's done correctly
you can not predict behavior under fight or flight

Your best bet is to
work with someone who has been in more than one shooting, no better instruction then from someone who has walked the walk
Master the fundamentals so if the fine motor skills flea the gross motor skills still work.

Thanks for the topic!
And if you're in Los Angeles, call me, I don't charge for range time, your life is too important for that!
Mike

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Yes. As I stated, anyone can manipulate statistics anyway they care to.
My statement stands, 30 years, not the past 7, release the aberrations and were able to look at the numbers, you would find it to be correct.

I agree with you on manipulating the statistics.

The way the stats are presented per shooting in the LAPD report linked above, it skews the hit ratio higher than it would otherwise be per shot. After all, there are undoubtedly plenty of missed shots within the shootings that resulted in at least one hit. And there are undoubtedly more than just one missed shot among all the no-hit shootings. So there it seems unlikely that 70% of the shootings resulting in a person being hit can equal a 70% hit rate for all shots fired for the periods being reported. Well I suppose a body could just be riddled with bullets to get the number up.... but I'd think there's got to be a lower hit ratio buried somewhere.

 

[Rastoff]

Not premise, but rather actual reported incidences.

Yes, but your premise is that, based on a report of someone without training successfully defending themselves, training is a waste of time and money. The ends justifies the means.

The object of surviving an armed encounter is to "survive" it.
The object of any of these shootings and/or brandishing incidents is to stop the threat.

If the presence of the firearm stops the threat, if the discharge with no hits or the discharge with the hit stops the incident, it is a positive one.

I completely agree, but you took my words out of context. The idea is that if shots are fired, hopefully someone felt in danger of life or limb (otherwise they wouldn't have shot). And, if those shots are fired, it's better they hit the mark. Training and practice greatly enhance the probability of making a hit.

No one is, at least I'm not, suggesting that training is the answer to everything, that if you get training you'll always hit the target. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I'm saying is that training, quality training, will increase a person's probability of survival.

p.s.
I'd love to come and spend some time with you Mike. I'm sure I could learn a lot. I will have to pursue that option further if you're of a mind.

 

[Mike Grasso]

The idea is that if shots are fired, hopefully someone felt in danger of life or limb (otherwise they wouldn't have shot). And, if those shots are fired, it's better they hit the mark. Training and practice greatly enhance the probability of making a hit.

p.s.
I'd love to come and spend some time with you Mike. I'm sure I could learn a lot. I will have to pursue that option further if you're of a mind.

I can not agree with you more, and my use of your quote was to further the discussion because it had merit.
And although what you say is the best case scenario, sometimes we settle for much less to survive.

As for shooting. I shoot every Tuesday, rain or shine.
And / or anyday I'm at the Dept Range instructing.

You are welcome to join me.

Mike

 

[Protected One]

Yes, but your premise is that, based on a report of someone without training successfully defending themselves, training is a waste of time and money. The ends justifies the means.

I didn't say (or imply) that training is a waste of time and money, nor do I believe that. If I did, why would I have a line item in my budget for it?

What I was trying to convey is that based upon the situation (specifically: HOME INVASION) it is not always NECESSARY.
Necessary and helpfull have two entirelly different meanings.
Training can be helpful, but has been proven not to be always necessary.

On a related issue: Wonder how many here who include a folding knife in their edc, have taken the time to get any training in its proper use? Hmmm.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

No one is, at least I'm not, suggesting that training is the answer to everything, that if you get training you'll always hit the target. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I'm saying is that training, quality training, will increase a person's probability of survival.

Right. And even those who choose no formal training would likely agree with that.

The divergence of opinion is whether or not the time and money invested in training and ongoing practice is a worthwhile investment in betterment of this undefined probability rate, and considering the incredibly low probability of ever needing to shoot someone in self defense anyway. As WayWatcher succinctly put it... we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a maybe. While that might be compelling enough for us gun enthusiasts who really don't need a reason to go to the range other than good weather, it's not all that convincing to average Joe. As mentioned earlier, 90% of adults in Tennessee don't even consider a carry permit worthwhile.

 

[JJEH]

Well come on, let's don't be petty here. We are talking probabilities here and maybe and perhaps...

Bottom line is that training is good and important. More important is what you make out of it.

How often do you encounter people that hold a M.D. but you wonder how they got it? Well they have it, but that doesn't mean they are good at it. Same applies here.

Now everyone bring it in... firepower on 3!

 

[adams484]

I just have to throw my two cents in on this. Handling a firearm and using it are two different things. The hunter who put a deer slug through my sister inlaw's garage a foot away from her comes to mind. The need to teach muzzle direction awareness to first time shooters on the range comes to mind as well. Yes I agree it ain't rocket science but would you want someone who has never driven a car before traveling at 65 in Atlanta or Denver on the interstate with you in the next lane? No we don't need special training to purchase a gun for protection but without it I pray they don't have to use it. Common sense is all that is required but common sense often leaves us when we are stressed. Add a dangerous device whether it be a gun, car, power tool without some basic instruction is not smart. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you are no supposed to cut you fingers off on a table saw but people still do it. Safety is learned not innate.

And remember not all people who buy firearms had a father teach them not to shoot things you don't want to shoot. We as a community should be out there helping those new to firearms as much as possible so the dam government will stay out of it.

 

[adams484]

Everyone seems focused on whether a person without training can defend themselves with a firearm. Sure they can but think about this scenario:

Like in the video a women buys a handgun and her ex boyfriend gets out of prison shows up on her doorstep with an attitude. She pulls the gun and he laughs. She then fires at him several times as he tries to force his way in. He realizes she means it and runs. In the mean time the neighbor's child is across the street with a serious gun shot wound. Would training have helped in that situation? Hard to say but it might have.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

The post above brings up the excellent point that training and/or experience are as important to the safely of innocents as to the protection of you & your family.

I wouldn't want to be responsible for the shooting of a neighbor sitting in their own home while trying to prevent harm from a BG in mine.

The person with, and let's use "Education" as opposed to training, NO education who buys a firearm and learns enough at the store to load and fire the weapon, will very possibly have ZERO idea that the .38 Special or 9mm round they just shot at the BG in their doorway can zip through him (if they hit) or the door or frame wall if they miss and punch a hole right through their neighbor's wall across the hallway of their apartment building OR though their neighbor's wall in the closely adjoining house next door OR even through the not closely adjoining house 100 feet away.

 

[Rastoff]

On a related issue: Wonder how many here who include a folding knife in their edc, have taken the time to get any training in its proper use? Hmmm.

This really opens the rabbit hole up wide. Since you mentioned it, I'm going to throw out my stance on knives; they are completely different than guns.

I agree with you that training is not necessary, but a good idea, to use a gun in self-defense. A knife however, is completely different. In the case of a knife, I believe that training and continuous practice is essential to be able to defend yourself with it.

You see, a gun is a ranged tool. With it distance between the defender and the bad guy can be maintained. A knife is an up close and personal tool. Get in a knife fight and you will be cut. The only question is, how bad? Will it be a gash that can be sewn up by a doc or will it be a mortal wound? Ask any professional who teaches knife fighting and they will agree. If you find a knife fighting instructor who says different, run from them.

Oh yeah, it doesn't matter if you are the attacker or the defender, you're getting cut. I don't know the exact numbers, but they are high. Something like 98% of those who attack/defend with a knife cut themselves in the process and not just a nick.


A knife does have some intimidation value, but not nearly as much as a gun. Some will say that a knife can be used as a ranged tool as well. Yeah, I guess you could throw it, but the chances it will hit with the point are small and the chances it will stop the bad guy are even smaller. Then, once thrown, you have no knife.

I always carry a knife, but would not use it as a defensive tool. A stick that I sharpened with my knife would be better.

 

[Mike Grasso]

Never bring a knife to a gunfight


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Protected One]

Never bring a knife to a gunfight


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would! It would be a backup to my backup gun....but I would definitely bring it.

 

[Protected One]

This really opens the rabbit hole up wide. Since you mentioned it, I'm going to throw out my stance on knives; they are completely different than guns.

I agree with you that training is not necessary, but a good idea, to use a gun in self-defense. A knife however, is completely different. In the case of a knife, I believe that training and continuous practice is essential to be able to defend yourself with it.

You see, a gun is a ranged tool. With it distance between the defender and the bad guy can be maintained. A knife is an up close and personal tool. Get in a knife fight and you will be cut. The only question is, how bad? Will it be a gash that can be sewn up by a doc or will it be a mortal wound? Ask any professional who teaches knife fighting and they will agree. If you find a knife fighting instructor who says different, run from them.

Oh yeah, it doesn't matter if you are the attacker or the defender, you're getting cut. I don't know the exact numbers, but they are high. Something like 98% of those who attack/defend with a knife cut themselves in the process and not just a nick.


A knife does have some intimidation value, but not nearly as much as a gun. Some will say that a knife can be used as a ranged tool as well. Yeah, I guess you could throw it, but the chances it will hit with the point are small and the chances it will stop the bad guy are even smaller. Then, once thrown, you have no knife.

I always carry a knife, but would not use it as a defensive tool. A stick that I sharpened with my knife would be better.

I'm in agreement with all that you said here. Also, there was a time when I carried three throwing knives on my person - and could accurately deliver them on target. But, though I still have the knives their place has been taken by my trusty handgun. They now sit in my desk drawer.