Posted: 12/15/2009 7:04:13 AM EDT
Wonder if it would catch on state side? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsnEiIKaDKA&feature=related |
|
There was a thread here recently that dealt with an LE outfit being banned from a range because they were doing this shit.
Maybe I'm not tacticool enough, but it seems like a pretty pointless exercise to me... unless the point is to make training more hazardous. Accidents happen. That's why it's best not to have live bodies downrange if you can help it. If this was a live-fire team exercise, then I could understand it. There's something to learn there. All I see here is zero gain traded for potential catastrophe. |
|
Some of the training down there can get pretty spirited, but even the guys I was shooting with wouldn't pull a stunt like that.
Only a matter of time before some bozo in the American training "industry" pulls this shit. There was that one instructor that had officers point their weapons at each other while chambering a round - you can imagine how that eventually turned out. But hell, they did it in an episode of "The Unit" so I guess everyone should be doing it.... |
|
I can see how it could be useful, the consequences of screwing up are much worse than shooting at paper and may have an effect teaching your brain to take the situation much more seriously. You have to wonder if the benefits outweigh the risks to valuable personnel. Perhaps if you offered money to hood rats to stand downrange, but then that would defeat the purpose.
I would not want to be swept with a live weapon, I don't care who is on the trigger. There are situations that I can imagine where a bodyguard would have to do just that and this training might help? |
|
Quoted:
Some of the training down there can get pretty spirited, but even the guys I was shooting with wouldn't pull a stunt like that. Only a matter of time before some bozo in the American training "industry" pulls this shit. There was that one instructor that had officers point their weapons at each other while chambering a round - you can imagine how that eventually turned out. But hell, they did it in an episode of "The Unit" so I guess everyone should be doing it.... Tooooooo late. |
|
It could be done, only with partners that you trust and rely your life on, with weapons including pistol, SMG, shotgun, and carbines, and not to be mentioned or posted on the web.
Furthermore, the two subjects are not standing static, thery are actually moving into each other and both shoot on the move. |
|
Quoted:
Hey, at least the guy has eye pro on. Rainier Wolfcastle as Radioactive man: "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_Man_(The_Simpsons_episode) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY because i don't know how to embed |
|
I see a lot of this kind of thing on construction sites.
Construction guys think that safety is "pussy" and will basically do virtually anything that's not outright suicidal. So there are about 2 construction deaths a day in the USA, every single day, year after year. Back in the old days, they would have 3 guys die for each floor on a skyscraper. If you do something risky that requires perfect performance, a few people will fuck it up due to simple human error and a few people will die. It is a mathematical certainty. It has nothing to do with training, or coolness, or trust, or anything else. End of story. ETA - Fuck it. Anyone who thinks this kind of training is a good idea should be strongly encouraged to do it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've done it. If you don't mind me asking... what (if anything) did you get out of it. I found out that I shoot just as fast with someone next to my target as I do without, which apparently was not the point of the exercise. The instructor said I'm a sociopath. |
| Yeah, based on the groups they were hitting which were outside an 8" circle at 20 feet...I'll pass. There are those I have trained with that I would feel confident doing this with, but if you are just doing it to prove you are more of a man, then forget all that... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've done it. If you don't mind me asking... what (if anything) did you get out of it. I found out that I shoot just as fast with someone next to my target as I do without, which apparently was not the point of the exercise. The instructor said I'm a sociopath.  That's funny, coming from the guy that put you up to it.  |
|
Done similar stuff from both ends. I love the people who thinks its crazy or negligent. How do you plan on shooting BGs who are within a foot of GGs? Have GG’s between you and them, have GGs behind them? Not negligently I hope.
If you ever do entry work you WILL fire within 1m of your partners, you will do it while moving, while they are moving, in low light, while the target moves, and while people shoot back! Don’t you think you and your teammates should have progressed to that from static engagements first? We have firing lines as a control measure for people who we do not trust with their muzzles. They have nearly 180 degrees or room to flap their shit around in, I don’t need but 10 degrees for either my draw or a rifle mount. The safety principle is “don’t point you muzzle at anything you are not willing to shoot” not “don’t have anything you can see near your target” The amount of room you need to be “safe” depends on the skill of the shooter and the predictability of those “downrange”. The lower that predictability the more room the same shooter would need. The first time you see someone near your target should NOT be in a real fight which has all the other unforeseen or unexperienced stresses in it. What is negligent and stupid is carrying a gun thinking the world looks like a flat range with a firing line, military left and right limits, and a drill sgt to control everyone’s behavior. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've done it. If you don't mind me asking... what (if anything) did you get out of it. I found out that I shoot just as fast with someone next to my target as I do without, which apparently was not the point of the exercise. The instructor said I'm a sociopath.
That's funny, coming from the guy that put you up to it. I was working on a protection detail at the time, so I found it valuable. It was a voluntary aspect of the course, and I trusted the guy I was partnered with. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, based on the groups they were hitting which were outside an 8" circle at 20 feet...I'll pass. There are those I have trained with that I would feel confident doing this with, but if you are just doing it to prove you are more of a man, then forget all that... +1000! You can shoot near me any day... As for these ignorant putzes... F(________________)CK NO!!! 
|
|
Quoted:
Done similar stuff from both ends. I love the people who thinks its crazy or negligent. How do you plan on shooting BGs who are within a foot of GGs? Have GG’s between you and them, have GGs behind them? Not negligently I hope. If you ever do entry work you WILL fire within 1m of your partners, you will do it while moving, while they are moving, in low light, while the target moves, and while people shoot back! Don’t you think you and your teammates should have progressed to that from static engagements first? We have firing lines as a control measure for people who we do not trust with their muzzles. They have nearly 180 degrees or room to flap their shit around in, I don’t need but 10 degrees for either my draw or a rifle mount. The safety principle is “don’t point you muzzle at anything you are not willing to shoot” not “don’t have anything you can see near your target” The amount of room you need to be “safe” depends on the skill of the shooter and the predictability of those “downrange”. The lower that predictability the more room the same shooter would need. The first time you see someone near your target should NOT be in a real fight which has all the other unforeseen or unexperienced stresses in it. What is negligent and stupid is carrying a gun thinking the world looks like a flat range with a firing line, military left and right limits, and a drill sgt to control everyone’s behavior. there was a little boy who asked his dad the difference between theory and reality. the dad said, ask your mom if she would sleep with brad pitt for $10,000 the mom said yes. when the boy reported back to the dad, the dad said, see, in theory we are sitting on $10,000, in reality your mom is a whore |
|
Quoted:
I'll just hold this here.... http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/quitcomplainingaboutyourjob11_3.JPG I have seen that picture several times, I think the guy holding the target is safer than anyone in the building behind him. Is that an occupied building or street behind him? |
|
Quoted:
Done similar stuff from both ends. I love the people who thinks its crazy or negligent. How do you plan on shooting BGs who are within a foot of GGs? Have GG’s between you and them, have GGs behind them? Not negligently I hope. If you ever do entry work you WILL fire within 1m of your partners, you will do it while moving, while they are moving, in low light, while the target moves, and while people shoot back! Don’t you think you and your teammates should have progressed to that from static engagements first? We have firing lines as a control measure for people who we do not trust with their muzzles. They have nearly 180 degrees or room to flap their shit around in, I don’t need but 10 degrees for either my draw or a rifle mount. The safety principle is “don’t point you muzzle at anything you are not willing to shoot” not “don’t have anything you can see near your target” The amount of room you need to be “safe” depends on the skill of the shooter and the predictability of those “downrange”. The lower that predictability the more room the same shooter would need. The first time you see someone near your target should NOT be in a real fight which has all the other unforeseen or unexperienced stresses in it. What is negligent and stupid is carrying a gun thinking the world looks like a flat range with a firing line, military left and right limits, and a drill sgt to control everyone’s behavior. I don't think it's crazy or negligent, so much as pointless and ineffective. Again - added risk for little reward. You either have the guy standing so far away from the target (as in this case) that it really makes no difference to the shooter (or shouldn't), or you actually do simiulate a stressful shot, which carries with it the very real possibility of him being shot. I'd actually be more in favor of the latter. At least then you're getting something for the risk taken. Like jarhead said above, when he did this exercise, he shot just the same. And why not? If you're not a good enough shooter to avoid hitting a man standing 2 feet away from a sillhouette at 8 yards, then you shouldn't be doing anything but practicing basic marksmanship anyway. It's entirely possible to learn muzzle control, and how to avoid sweeping good-guys, without having live bodies downrange. IMO, spending more time on actual shooting skills kills two birds with one stone. You become a better shot, and your added confidence in shot placement takes the guesswork out of close shots like this. |
|
The SAS did it with Margaret Thatcher while she was running the show in England. And appareently it was a rather common practice at the time. I have no idea if they still do such things [sarcasm]since they stopped asking for my input on how they should conduct training long ago.[/sarcasm]
If those guys feel there is some benefit to drills like that I won't argue with them. I will try to avoid participating though. [sarcasm]Unless I am the one shooting and happen to really dislike the guy standing downrange.[/sarcasm] |
|
Quoted:
it does add a bit more stress...... It would be safer and more stressful to snort a gram of blow and have someone tell you there is a fed here with more free blow but it's a setup or maybe it's not at your training. It's never going to be anything close to someone trying to kill you, so go with th blow. |