Posted: 8/21/2026 5:54:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: R_S][Edited]
Jeff answers questions on a variety of topics and the answers are directly relevant to training:![]() Answering your questions on Special Forces, GWOT, guns, gear, and more 2026. One key takeaway is differences in ranges from military to civilian. He indicates his gunfights in the military were over 100 yards and sometimes 400y+, while his training for civilian gunfights focuses on 50y and in. Very much agree. Except for active shooter, most civilian gunfights are going to be 25 yards or less. It's sensible for those interested in civilian self defense to focus on distances 50 yards and less. Military and Citizen Soldiers need to be training BOTH under 50 yards and to hit targets far beyond 100 yards. Jeff's discussion of training for a balance of speed and accuracy instead of just accuracy is one that instructors like Ken Hackathorn could benefit from. Wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was an outstanding video, but I do actually have a nit. Jeff talks about SOF guys who do not like competitive shooting because they are not good at it. That is a common civilian competitive world denigration that is easily described as group attribution error. It might be called social identity enhancement or Self-enhancement through out-group derogation. Paul Howe is always the first example of that comes to mind when competitive shooters dis people that don't like their sport. Paul has lots of experience on the 2-way range as well as tremendous experience as an firearms instructor. He has a systematic approach to train for the real world and competition is not part of it. Gabe Suarez is likely pathological in his intent to win a gunfight and he has won several. Gabe doesn't like competitive shooting and doesn't see it as useful and has good reasons for it. For myself I've done civilian and military competitive shooting. I benefited from both early in my training. At first I was amazed at civilian competitions. Some of the shooters were just amazing. But as I matured I found that, as Jeff admits towards the end of the video, perhaps 25% of their performance relates to gear and how they angle their reloads, etc. From the civilian side I think most of the benefit for competition is with new or moderately experienced shooters. Military shooters typically also benefit from competitions. Particularly the competitive aspect of ranking which motivates them to do better. I liked military competitive shooting events better as they have a relatively even playing field for firearms/ammunition. It is all USGI guns and ammo. That makes military competitions more of a skill competition than a gear race. And unlike many civilian shooters, military shooters already have training on tactics. As I trained more I found reading about real life shootings and gunfights, that competitive shooting was incredibly unrealistic. In the civilian context there may only be one threat, but a considerably larger number of no-shoots which competitions like IDPA don't allow for. Brown cardboard targets don't look like real people. Competition did not accurately train my OODA loop in realistic rapidly identifying friend from foe. Rapidly exiting a threat to speed up target transitions is essential to winning a competition, but can be a major mistake when those 2 hits to the A-zone do not seriously hurt a real world threat wearing concealed body armor. Reloads in the civilian context are unheard of, but reloads are critical to scoring well in competitive shooting. Backup guns are far more likely in the civilian context. And don't even get me started on the absurd tactics I see in civilian competitive shooting. I saw one noted competitive shooter stand in a location where he was simultaneously visible to 7 different threats. Instead of using nearby cover to engage one threat at a time, he was able to shave seconds on the 1-way range by exposing himself fully to every threat on the stage. He was rewarded for doing something that would be suicidal on the 2-way range. As Paul Howe, Gabe Suarez, and many others know that Force-on-Force is critical to preparing for the real fight. Force-on-Force is also what most shooters avoid. The truth is that many shooters, competitive or otherwise don't do Force-on-Force because THEY are not good at it. and there is also physical pain penalty. |
per aspera ad astra
|
Cardio, Cardio, Cardio…..the Troll (if you were a Det A cat, you know) would run us in full kit, 300 yard to the shoot house and then through the shoot house. Full kit, explosive breach, target discrimination, and my personal favorite nods on a hot humid West Virginia evenings. 18 series cat is gonna have their own personal stories. My biggest contribution to how to survive a real life gunfight would be you have to be in better cardio shape than your opponent. In a somewhat related matter, I am alive today because in 1997. I had a six minute ground fight with a man intent on killing me and the only reason I survived and he didn’t was I had better cardio.. Your mileage will certainly vary… 18 Z 50 |
|
Originally Posted By 18B30: Cardio, Cardio, Cardio…..the Troll (if you were a Det A cat, you know) would run us in full kit, 300 yard to the shoot house and then through the shoot house. Full kit, explosive breach, target discrimination, and my personal favorite nods on a hot humid West Virginia evenings. 18 series cat is gonna have their own personal stories. My biggest contribution to how to survive a real life gunfight would be you have to be in better cardio shape than your opponent. In a somewhat related matter, I am alive today because in 1997. I had a six minute ground fight with a man intent on killing me and the only reason I survived and he didn’t was I had better cardio.. Your mileage will certainly vary… 18 Z 50 ![]() Sounds like that had you doing target discrimination the hard way, with fogged eyepro/NVG! I imagine they got the idea for the 300 yard sprint in kit to the objective from "Match PT2100" GENERAL GEORGE PATTON COMBAT PISTOL. Haven't had many volunteers to do that, but I did run a 1-man variant of the match for one student who was willing. I've done a variant of the match with rifle and it is a gut check for sure. Some of the better training I've done. Doing heavy bag training for the first time in a combatives was a learning experience for me on how much cardio endurance it actually takes to stay in a fight. Going strong hitting a heavy bag is completely exhausting after a surprisingly short period of time. Boxers like to use Circuit Training and I noticed at Tactical Games that my competitiveness in the event would have been greatly enhanced if I was doing circuit training. Tactical Games requires several minutes of high intensity fitness along with fighting skills. It was probably one of the most interesting competitions I've done, originally based on a SOF competition. |
per aspera ad astra
|
One of the more interesting questions asked during the video mentioned some instructors I was not familiar with. Rob Gray and Pete Blair. Found some more information on them: Dr. Rob Gray: An Ecological Approach to physical education and police training. ![]() Dr. Rob Gray: An Ecological Approach to physical education and police training. I wish the interviews were a bit more organized, but around 7 minutes in the first interview gets to the heart of a proper training approach. Proper training is not training techniques separately, but in context with decision-making. I think that is what bothered me so much about USPSA/IDPA. The decisionmaking they taught was way too often suicide. I call them suicide drills. Gabe Suarez would run a suicide drill in his Force-on-Force training because an astounding number of gunfighters train to commit suicide without knowing it and will only learn the hard way by "dying" doing what they trained to do. At 24 minutes in there is a discussion of "OODA loop proof training" and it's relation to quality "representative" training. If the OODA loop is present in your training you have a representative design. Having training where all the elements of Observe, Orient, Decide, Act are present is quality representative training. At 52 minutes there is a conversation regarding the massive disparity between LEO accuracy during training(80-90%) and real world stats (~30%). Dr. Gray states "something is different between those two things and we should try to close that gap." Dr. Gray states explicitly what I previously said. Range time is relevant but there should be "Less time on the range and more time in scenario training" "have someone firing back at you even though it's painful" "It hugely changes the whole situation" Dr. Pete Blair: Tactical Science & Rethinking Fundamentals in Police training. ![]() Dr. Pete Blair: Tactical Science & Rethinking Fundamentals in Police training. |
per aspera ad astra
| Military guys trash talking shooting competition is like a guy on the leg press giving a scientific dissertation about why the guy squatting 500 is inferior. Matt Pranka (former CAG guy) is a USPSA GM. Frank Proctor (20 year SF) is too. I guess they see some value in it. The likelihood of me being in a firefight is basically zero. I can train for 2 gun and get LOTS of real world feedback in 6 hours every month. That beats going to an entertrainment class with a navy seal and learning "gunfighting". Also like was said above... cardio.... |
|
More info on Ecological Approach: The Ecological Coach’s Manifesto: A New Way to Lead, Learn, and Let Go What if drills aren’t the answer? What if skills aren’t things we install, but things that emerge? What if players don’t need to be corrected so much as given space to discover? But here’s the thing: the best players I’ve ever coached—the ones who adjusted in real time, who solved strange problems on strange balls, who made magic in motion—didn’t always shine in drills. And the ones who looked flawless in drills? Too often, they disappeared when the whistle blew for 6v6. That disconnect broke something open in me. I began to see what we were really rewarding: obedience over awareness. Compliance over creativity. The ability to replicate, not the courage to explore. If we want adaptable, aware, game-ready athletes, we have to stop worshiping the clean rep and start honoring the real rep. We must care less about what a rep looks like, and more about what it demands of the athlete’s attention. I stopped asking, “How do I get them to do it right?” And started asking, “How do I help them figure it out?” Obedience doesn’t prepare them for that. Adaptability does. We don’t need players who memorize. We need players who notice. Who solve. Who create—while moving, while breathing, while responding to a world that doesn’t wait. Which means our job isn’t to give them the answer. It’s to build the space where the answer might emerge. Not Every Rep Is Created Equal We’ve been taught to chase reps. But what we should be chasing is richness. A rep is only valuable if it feels like the game. If it carries information. If it matters. Otherwise? You’re rehearsing movements in a vacuum—and hoping they somehow transfer. |
per aspera ad astra
|
This sounds almost like a Zen Buddist quote, but is actually something I already use in teaching Repetition without repetition Changing movement problems require adaptable movement solutions, so it is paramount for coaches to consider how repetitions unfold in practice. Bernstein’s notion of “repetition without repetition” (1967, p. 134) would see performers solving alive problems of varying complexity in contextual situations under changing constraints. Repetition without repetition is the pursuit of the process of solving movement problems again and again with adapted “techniques” rather than the pursuit of a perfect pattern execution (Bernstein, 1967). For coaches, this means constraints are manipulated from rep to rep (e.g., starting position, number of opponents or teammates, time remaining on the shot clock, and space size). It should be noted that very little might change in the setup of the problem; however, the coach might educate the player’s attention or intention, shaping the way they engage with the next repetition, which encourages repetition without repetition. As Bernstein famously stated at the end of his quote, “if this position is ignored, is merely mechanical repetition by rote, a method which has been discredited in pedagogy for some time.” After 17 years of coaching, I couldn’t agree more with him: variability in movement solutions (through presenting variable movement problems) and the pursuit of authenticity are vital. Movement ownership and authenticity ...In the pursuit of creative and adaptable behavior, there is value in viewing the movements of others, not to replicate them but to utilize them as an example that guides how one may attempt to interact with the problems they face. Exploratory behavior, while immersed in slices of the game, has the potential to help expand one’s movement skill set. Lastly, if a coach notices a player routinely moving in non-functional ways (i.e., they aren’t solving many problems) or their movement could potentially lead to injury, it’s here where the coach might provide some explicit guidance, educate their attention to specifying information within the problem, or manipulate other constraints to help lead them away from the ineffective behavior. 5 Principles for Effective Ecological Coaching |
per aspera ad astra



