It never ceases to amaze me how stupid conversations on gun fora are when it comes to the difference between combat accuracy and competition "bullseye" shooting.

Combat shooting is about placing EFFECTIVE hits on target, as much as necessary, to NEUTRALIZE the threat. What does "neutralize' mean? It means you have pumped enough lead into the bad guy to prevent him from doing anymore harm.

Talk to any true expert in this subject matter and they will tell you:

1) The handgun is a weak weapon to begin with.
2) Most handgun fights take place within 15 feet, and last no more than three seconds, and no more than three shot.
3) You have to be able to get shots off quickly, using your front sight only, and aim for center mass.

This drives the competition kind of shooters nuts. They think the ultimate goal of all shooting is to put rounds through the same hole in paper.

NO.

The goal is to make the EMT's job hard, or the coroner's job hard. If you are putting rounds in the same or close to the same hole, you are are not placing shots EFFECTIVELY.

The goal is to get as many shots into center mass as required to stop the bad buy.

Head shots? Cool, if possible.

Shots to the "electrical" or "circulation" system...yes, ideal.

Putting shots into the chest and stomach cavity as many as needed? Ideal. But put shots into the pelvis, and the guy is going DOWN. No question. Put four shots into the chest general area, and he is having a bad day. Don't stop shooting until he is down and not moving. Look for the hand so hang loosely, a sign he is dead or unconscience. Be ready to pump a couple more into the not not-moving bad guy if it looks like he is still squirming.

If you think that in a gun fight you will have time to get your sights aligned perfectly and squeeze off "perfect" shots, this will just get you dead, dead and ... dead.

The goal is to engage your threat with the front sight on target and squeeze off as many shots as required to neutralize the bad guy.

       That's a lot of words for basically saying nothing.
 

This should go well.

Edited...VA-gunnut

Oh good. Another "accuracy" thread.

True experts will not say that gunfights end in 3 rounds. They will tell you that you will keep shooting until you run out of ammunition.

"Training goal"

That's the problem, right there.

What life experiences are you drawing your conclusions from?

What problem is that exactly?

 

I shoot IDPA and I don't try to put my shots in one hole. In fact, you'd really suck if you took time for that!  You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about and you're probably neither a professional expert nor a competitive shooter. You should be ashamed of all the dumb you posted here.

Enjoy your murder charge.



 

I shot competition handguns for years.....both 'Bullseye' and IPSC.I tried not to confuse the two.

For self defense and at close distance odds are you won't have a chance (and shouldn't try) to acquire the front sights.

...am I right or am I right?

Ever shot anyone?

i'm pretty sure this guy is trolling. right? don't tell me people seriously give out advice this bad for real.

Didn't you read? Your goal is to make the EMT/coroner's job difficult


OP is a doofus.  "unconscience" are you fucking kidding me?

That's murder homie

Oh yeah.

Excessive use of force for sure.





LOT of people have been hemmed up for "anchor shots".



 

One word: FUNDAMENTALS

Exactly. Wow, just, wow.

Do you realize how pointless you post was?





You said "blah blah competition shooting is stupid" Then listed off a bunch of UBER basic stuff for self defense shooting...





That is basic fundamentals practiced in competition shooting!!!!





First line nailed it...
Even Pincus apparently admitted action shooting is good training for self defense shooting, if that's the case, think how far behind the power curve you are?





Care to actually put forth a real argument?  Or you going to stick with sloppy opinion?



 

OP is clearly a moron. Being a capable competition shooter and competent CCW person able to to defend themselves are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are likely complimentary. I would wager a D class USPSA shooter has gunhandling skills above 80% of those carrying and would double the wager they could outshoot the OP in any test.

Your silliness sickitates me.


You think you're going to put 3 holes in cluster on some asshole's chest if you don't purposely spread them out?   He or she isn't going to be stapled to a backer on the range.   They'll be moving and you'll be glad to get a majority of your shoots in the torso.    You'll take 3's and 4's and like it, 5x ring on a live moving target may or may not get hit at all.  Good on you if you do.

Carry on your "schooling" of arfcom while I go make some popcorn.

Who knows.

People are stupid, nothing surprises me these days.

Yeah OK, but the mix of skills is good and basic marksmanship technique is always good.  Worst thing about the old time bullseye shooters ius that generally their gun handling skills are horrible.

What the fuck?

What if there are three bad guys? Aiming still don't count?

You've had too much internet bro, this is more for GD.

It's true competition shooters goals are different than self defense shooters. A lot of them use tricked out guns and gear and certain methods you should never use for self defense. However things like IDPA competitions are very good to help improve your skills and you should run your same setup that you carry for self defense. It doesn't matter if you don't win, what matters is that you practice and improve. Of course a lot of people do all sorts of competition shooting and I don't think it necessarily negatively affects their self defense skills. Any shooting practice always helps.

The troll is strong with this one.

I remember when I had my first beer.

GBM4 makes a few "extra" statements that detract from his original message.  The problem is is that his original message is not far from accurate.  Survival in the situation this thread anticipates depends on seeing, firing, hitting, and repeating until the problem is resolved.  If you think that is a neat and clean action/response/resolution sequence, you are dreaming.  The best of such situations are a rat screw.

If you consider the realm of highly trained law enforcement opposed by fairly well trained bad guys, you can see just how wrong things can go.  For light reading and a good reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

This situation has been analyzed, dissected, and studied to death. Most of it is self serving law enforcement BS trying to justify a rat screw.

What is rarely mentioned and is the real cause of 8 FBI agents getting the shiest shot out of them by two evil doers, is that the FBI totally failed to plan for the use of, use, and effectively employ long guns.  SWAT people lived and died with handguns knowing the evil doers were long gun operators.  The FBI always had long guns freely available for use.  Virtually every agent in this time frame was M16 and 870 trained.  These guys were absolutely unprepared for a real gun fight.  They got took.

For the average civilian CCW carrier with half arsed skills and no experience or meaningful training, running and hiding in the midst of that mess would have been the only logical choice.  

There are many other places you could chose to engage or chose not to in real life, on a very occasional basis, just as most policemen never fire a gun during a 25 year career.  The simple CCW criteria out to be, "Am I or people I am responsible for under threat?"  After that decision is made, follow the answer.  If you cannot run, hide, or talk, use force as necessary when threatened through no fault of your own until the threat is neutralized,  Neutralized simply means the threat is down, out, and no longer a threat.  That pretty much covers real life law.

The legal rule is not, "It ain't over until the slide locks back."

Drawing a CCW, much less firing it, means the next two years and $20,000 for a lawyer, assuming you did nothing wrong, is what it will cost you before the aftermath is resolved.

If you do actually shoot someone, it will be a shiest storm.  It helps if you survive.  

The OP is a little odd in over statement, but I think he gets the idea that the subject matter is not tidy, not one shot, and rarely really clear while happening. Without a good bit of training, just recognizing what is going on is where most CCW folks end up behind the action/reaction curve.

Up close, speed counts and virtually any hits count.  Time and distance are a trained shooters friend.  The only guys who really knew what the hell they were doing in Miami were Risner and Orrantia.

Gun fights are violent, fast and dynamic. Your best option is not to be in one, and your second best option is to be the one with the long gun.

 

Oh I definitely agree



 

Using your sights takes too long and will get you killed? It kind of worked out OK for Jim Cirillo. I was training a local PD last Fall and one guy had his shots going everywhere. Yes, they were inside the "Q" target, but nowhere near the zones I drew on the target that I told him to shoot for.

I asked if he was point shooting, knowing the answer already. I asked him to try using his sights to get at least a rough sight picture, and demonstrated that at reasonable distances, the front sight anywhere in the rear notch works. His shots were much more accurate after that, and he lost no time on the timer.

I told them that some shootings may require more than "Minute of "Q" Target" accuracy. I've been shooting for many decades, and have been trained professionally for almost as long. I use my sights, and I'm still usually faster than even the SWAT guys. I'm a firm believer that if you don't have time to miss you better use your sights. I don't know who first said that, but I wish it was me.

Troll thread