Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
1
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
Posted: 7/17/2025 1:57:20 PM EDT
|
I have been thinking a lot about this topic. I have the impression that in order to have a good tactical training for self defense, it is necessary to have some sort of active resistance from some counterpart. If you go to the range and shoot paper targets, how are you going to transfer that knowledge into a real firefight? It is like training boxing without doing sparring. There are a lot of force on force trainings, so I think my impression, that an active "fight" is essential to provide good training, is not just my personal opinion. Besides, I think the best way to test your skills is in an active engagement. However, it is pretty difficult to find a system that allows the users/players to simulate the modern firefight in realistic scenarios. I can think of Paintball, Airsoft, Lasertag, Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, PC games (Arma III) which all allow you to train some aspects of the modern firefight. What is your preference or what is your take on each of the activities? Where do you see their potentials / advantages / disadvantages? Is there a training system that I missed? |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
2
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Ok, perhaps I should go into more detail. Trying to evaluate the benefits that each systems brings to the training, I would like to list todays systems that allow a simulation of the modern firefight and list their advantages (+), disadvantages (-) and neutral points (o). Paintball: +Good feeling for cover and what parts of your body are behind cover +Moderate after game analysis where you got hit (bruises) +Intense training and immersion, because the projectiles hurt +With real action markers moderate accuracy of weapon handling +Ballistic trajectory -Projectiles are visible: Players tend to neglect optics and just watch where the projectiles are flying (not so good for training to maintain the sight picture under stress) -Projectiles move much slower than in reality --> dodging projectiles is possible, running from cover to cover while not getting hit is easier -Range is limited to 60 meters (maybe 90 meters for snipers or sth. but not comparable to modern firearms) --> you feel safe, when you are out of range, which in reality, would be a false conclusion -Accuracy is limited -No target penetration / differentiation between cover and concealment possible Airsoft (very similar to paintball with additional points): +Very accurate weapon handling (except recoil) -Hard to identify your hits / bounces from the wall when doing CQB Simunitions: Very similar to airsoft, I actually do not see much of an advantage in using Simunitions instead of Airsoft. And it is pretty expensive. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
3
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Lasertag: +Excellent accuracy +Very good range (up to 1000 meters with a laser) +Shots travel with the speed of light --> no dodging (it is actually easier to hit someone than with ballistic weapons, which is a good training effect, when being shot at?) +Only sensors can get hit --> needs a lot of sensors over the body to make the players "hide" their bodies completely behind targets oWeapon realism depends on the system you are using but could technically be very realistic (exchangeable magazines, movable piston, etc.) -No ballistic trajectory, probably no transferable learnings how to shoot moving targets -No target penetration / differentiation between cover and concealment possible Virtual Reality: +Can cover a huge range of combat environments +Realistic weapon handling possible (depending on the equipment) +Good after-training review (entire session can be recorded, shot trajectories can be tracked) +Shooting through walls is possible (cover/concealment) -As far as I know, there is no VR system out there with a realistic possibility to move. There are VR treadmills, but they only enable you to slide on the spot. So no terrain simulation is possible. If you train in a hall, through which you can move freely, then the simulation area is limited to the size of that hall. -Movements become "sloppy": In order to do something in VR, you just have to execute the movement "roughly". E.g. if you want to reload your magazine, you just move your hand close to your weapon replica and press a button. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
4
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Augmented Reality: I am not going to list the pros and cons here, since, as far as I know, there is not yet a system out there that one could use. The idea is to have a digital model of the field, whith every tree, house etc. and to track the position of the users and the position of the gun replicas. The users would then move through the real world and engage each other. By connecting each user wirelessly and checking the real world data with the digital data, a computer can calculate the trajectories, determine penetration depths through objects etc. That seems to be one of the most realistic solutions, but I do not think we have the technology to do this with a reasonable amount of money and effort. PC (Arma III): +inexpensive +uncomplicated +all possible scenarios realisable -you train only your knowledge and do not actually move |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
5
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Shooting "cinema": It is a range with a screen, where a video can be displayed. The user uses real guns. The shots are tracked where they hit the screen. +Real weapon handling -Only very "flat" scenarios can be displayed -Movement of the user is limited (due to limited space) Shoot house: +Real weapon handling +Training movement in the team +More or less realistic sense of danger (because your teammates could actually shoot you) Did I forget anything? As it is too complicated to use all of these systems I would like to find a training system that covers all or most crucial abilities. I think there is no alternative to shooting a real gun, when it comes to weapon handling and recoil control. Technically, I think it is impossible to generate the recoil energy of a real firearm without ejecting a heavy projectile (law of impuls). But then again, shooting a 5,56 mm almost feels like an Airsoft gun. I think recoil is mainly a factor for handguns or really big caliber guns. Do you use any of the systems yourself? What is your "philosophy"? I don´t know how much I should value the ability of a system to simulate bullet penetration or if it is enough to just know the difference between cover and concealment to apply it in the field. What are the essential abilities that a combat simulation system should train in your opinion? |
|
Excellent question. I think video games and laser tag are the easiest to start with. Ideally you want a quality instructor. Shivworks and KR Training would get recommendations from me for Force-on-Force personal defense. I've also done FoF with Hoffner and MAST Solutions. Also good options. CSAT uses paintball for CQB training. You won't go wrong with CSAT. I run my FoF with airsoft. Already use airsoft for marksmanship training. Some people don't like Gabe Suarez, but his Force-on-Force book is solid and compatible with airsoft. KR Training uses laser pistols for some iterations in that they are clean and you can use them in a normal indoor environment for some degree of added realism. The main thing is you want to be safe. Law Enforcement has way too many fatalities because they bring loaded firearms into the training area. In the Guard we would sometimes run around the woods with wooden guns (For safety). Fake guns are not exactly the best (MILES is better, but still not perfect), but you can still get a degree of quality training in. One Shepherd uses MILES gear, so if you are leaning towards actual combat simulation, that might be the best you can do outside of the military. |
per aspera ad astra
|
As far as video games, using what the military uses for training is a good first start. Full Spectrum Warrior was (is?) used for squad leader tactics (fire and movement) |
per aspera ad astra
|
Sims, and other marking rounds, give you your actual pistol (or a close copy). You can get conversion kits that swap the barrel or complete slide. You can also get a dedicated Sims pistol. UTM also makes kits and rounds. I found that the UTM or Force on Force rounds have less malfunctions. Sim rounds seem picky; I once stacked 14 sim rounds in a 10.5 barrel AR using a Sim bolt conversion. I haven’t seen that with UTM or FoF. One big advantage is that Sims hurts! Airsoft is fairly painless. Sims leaves welts; I even have some scars. It makes you think about cover and exposure. Sims gear can be expensive. If you are lucky, you can find some trade in/ used equipment. I got a couple 226 conversions and a BCG conversion off Gunbroker for less than $100 each. You also need some protective gear. If it is a no holds barred fight to the death, you’ll want combatives helmets (try Redbeard). If it’s a scripted scenario with a reliable roleplayer, you can probably get by with eye pro for the good guys and helmets for the baddies. Some places won’t sell you rounds unless you are LE or Mil. You can find those on GB as well. Sims also has the option of using blanks (that don’t propel anything). That is beneficial in many ways. Airsoft is cheaper overall, requires less safety equipment, and rounds are available. I have limited experience with rifles, but I’ve found that gas pistols don’t work well outside in the cold. The benefit is you can take your airsoft to the local field and play live action Call of Duty. I don’t know if it was the specific airsoft pistols we had, but using them for ECQC type training did not work. During entangled gunfights, the BB seemed to roll out of the barrel before the shot. Neither are going to give you completely realistic range and accuracy. Personally, if I were doing it over, I would get an airsoft version of my pistol and rifle. I would use that for training in the basement and backyard, then get with my buddies for some force on force. You could then get some exposure to marking rounds at ECQC or other force on force classes. I think this still didn’t answer your question. |