There's been some controversy lately involving Ken Hackathorn's training methods. He advocates having his students face an armed adversary who is shooting PAST them from a position of cover. Some other instructors have said this is foolish and needlessly dangerous, but Hackathorn defends it, saying that's the way it's going to be in a real gunfight and you'd better train that way or you're in trouble. He wants you to see the muzzle, see the gun fire and feel the concussion. That way when it happens for real it won't freak you out.

Would you want to train this way, or in a safehouse with dummy targets that can't shoot back? What do you folks think about it?

Papajohn

Will have to hunt up a related article from one of the Civil War sites.

The number of shots per hit was being discussed, and how well seasoned troops could miss so often.

So they set up a line of shooters and let them fire at targets. Then set the same people up again, but had helpers off in the wings throwing tennis balls at them. Now mentally you know a tossed teniis ball is going to sting a bit, but it's not deadly....but the hit ratio for the same troops fell by a factor of 4.

In your case, think an automatic system uysing the big bright movie blanks (which are made to be extra bright and have the lash last longer) aimed at the students along with a couple of paint ball guns also being run by remote should do just as good a job without the danger.

Were I the one that might have to shoot in a tactical situation, I would want that training to be as realistic as possible.

As a hunter, I regularly practice shooting from weak positions, and my success speaks for itself. If you can make your practice as realistic as possible you are that much better off when you face the real situation.

Mind you, I am not a cop or a soldier and I would like to see their two cents worth on this topic.

When I was in the Infantry, we had live fire excersizes to help familiarize us with having bullets whizz by you. Its not something you just jump into. This is what is worked up to after many hours of training. I wouldnt throw a class full of greenhorns into a situation where someone is firing live ammo at them just to see how they react. It would be effective in that matter, but seems too dangerous.

20 years ago I played a lot of tournament paintball and the subject came up over how people could hit every time with targets and miss miserably during a game and why soeone who was a good 40 yard shooter rarely hit anyone outside of 15 yards.

Remember, this is a liquid filled, nearly round gelatin capsule fired from a smooth bore. A .68 caliber paintball at 280-300 fps (10ft from muzzle) stings at 40 yards and leaves a heck of a welt and most often a good bruise. You learn to not want to get hit. So most people can't hit squat playing paintball because of the stress involved in not wanting to be hit. You knew you were in trouble in the field when you bumped into someone who didn't flinch or duck but returned fire accurately when you fired on them. It meant they weren't a newbie and that could mean all sorts of nasty things could happen.

Training does overcome this tendency. New players do learn that to end a firefight you must be able to hit your opponent under fire. So the idea of training under fire had merit.
I will say that Ken Hackathorn is just like those guys who believed that paintball should be just like combat and allow things like smoke bombs and small explosive charges to simulate battlefield explosions etc. Carrying things ridiculously too far.

Might try reactive remote paintball guns that you can shut down by hitting a target. If they can shoot you with paintballs until you put them out of commision by hitting their target that would be enough stress I think. Stings like crazy when you are only wearing shorts and a T shirt. BTDT, it was fun while it lasted. :)

Have you ever seen the Lenny Magill ( www.gunvideo.com (http://www.gunvideo.com) ) training videos/dvd's? He often uses Simunitions (sp?), a low velocity, non lethal type ammo, along with protective equipment, like for paintball, for realistic traing in his classes. It seems like a good idea.

Probably nothing wrong with getting accustomed to the flash and the noise but wouldn't you still know that you were not in danger?

I think we all realize that this is mental conditioning. As I agree with the philosophy, I can't entirely disagree with the method until I see it on video, or the field specifications and angles of fire become available.

The idea, of course, as explained very articulately above in the paintball example, is to shut out all outside influences and decidedly concentrat on your target until it is neutralized. Nauturally, this may mean your untimely demise, but gunfights are rare for a reason.

If I was comfortable with the angle of fire and the persons/machinery shooting toward me, I would definately try it.

I'm sorry if I had live rounds coming my way I'd be taking that person out! That's not training that's just plain stupid! Yes I'm prior military! That's the way I've been trained! :mad:

Gunnut45/454;

+1 sir

I'll not allow anyone to give me near incoming or be downrange of live fire unless it's being returned.

One trainer [ not this one mentioned ] did this in a class and a gun writer happened to be in the class unannounced. When the article came out of his actions with students, there was a lot of discussion on the net about it.

He lost a lot of potential students over what was considered by most to be unsafe range practices. It's a liability nightmare for civilian trainers, and to add insult to injury, the first time a student takes a round in this type of training, trainers will likely be seriously scrutinized for the acts of a few.

Can you see the legislation that would ensue from that type of incident from the anti's? Wonder what my training liability insurance with soar to after such happens?

Brownie

The only time I'm knowingly put myself in the field of fire was at those old target ranges that had butts...those trenches you squnched down in to run score and haul the targets frames up and down. Even knowing you were safe, it's interresting what the sound of 30 caliber bullets zipping just over your head will do to your consentration.

Alays a bad idea to have live fire directed near you...mistakes happen, but it takes a lot less of a mistake to redirect gun fire by 20degrees than it does by 180degrees.

ribbonstone
Yep I always thought those guy's that did that chore were just alittle crazy!;) I can't believe these guy's that want to train this way could get insurance? I have to see the policy before I'd join -not that I would!

Gentlemen,

I think I understand where the old boy is going with it, although I do believe the value added versus risk in this situation ought to say "probably not."

Understand trying to instill focus, while other things are going on around a fellow, but it seems to me better ways to get that done. I'd say to me the real training point ought to be the proper use of cover, which buys time for a fellow to solve his problem. Some better way to reinforce this ought to be contrived.

Did the infiltation course thing back in my younger days at good old Ft Beginning GA, machine guns locked a few feet up, bullets fired overhead, several hundred meter crawl towards the gun line. Training point was "stay low", which seemed reasonable enough to me, so I did just that. Because of the controlled environment, pucker wasn't enough to make it really traumatic, so we took the exercise for what it was worth, a real smoker. I suspect it wouldn't be too different for the other fellows in this school.

The real thing, well there is nothing controlled about that, and one will not rise to the occasion, but rather default to his last level of training. So in the pre-game at home station, the payoff is training to use the weapon as an extension of yourself, making oneself a hard target by instinctively finding/ fighting to cover, and getting off as fast as can be done accurattely.

I don't mind so much getting shot at, although I suspect that getting shot is no dang fun at all. If I am sure that I am not going to be harmed, will artifically created incoming impact me enough to modify my behavior?

One man's opinion.

best.

Steve

whitehunter35
Agreed, but we're not talking training (military-warfighting) He wants to train CCW with live round's!! What it's about 1-100,000 CCW are actually ever going to pull there piece and use it(Unless you live in L.A.)all pun intended. So why would the training need to be that intense? Just seems to be a very unreasonable amount of risk to take for the very little benefit one would get.!! And being trained as you have been you know you have to do it all the time or you do loose that "edge"!! :cool:

As a military trainer the risks involved are extremely high for accidents due happen no matter how well planned for (Murphy factor). I would think that simunitions/paintball or other nonletheal means would be better and still accomplish the training task.


CD

The next step is realistic grenade-use training. You lob grenades at people who lob live grenades at you.

As a parent of 2 paintball fanatics, I agree with ribbonstone, There's something to be said for training under fire. Be it blanks, paintballs or whatever. It's taught me to aim and shoot ouch much faster I can tell ouch you that OUCH much.

RJ


OOUUCH :rolleyes:

I beleive in realistic training. But this does not make for realistic training. YOU KNOW YOU WILL NOT BE HIT, where is the reality in that. Simunitions is the only why to go. You have consiquences for your mistakes. This live fire stuff he is doing is just 'grandstanding' to get face time and free publicity. :mad:

I agree with Jim. As "realistic" as it may be intended to be, the fact remains...you know you won't get hit. What trainer in their right mind would want to be the first to outright shoot one of their students??? Would kinda hurt enrollment for the next class, wouldn't it? I'm all for training to be as real as possible, but having a body hung on you in the process is a touch overboard. I think Simunitions or some form of paintball opposing fire would work just as well, without inviting The Reaper to the party. The problem with "realistic training" is that it isn't "real", and there's just no safe way to totally achieve the reality. Real life shootings have all the bad things you just can't completely duplicate during controlled training...auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, tachypsychia, the incredible adrenaline dump, and of course the most imposing hurdle-someone trying just as hard or harder to take your life instead of you taking their's. Of course that's just my opinion, and my shots (or thoughts) don't always land in the ten ring.

Doc Holidude

There is nothing that will ever replace real life experance!!! :cool:

I do not think that this practice would make any sense. If the idea is that you physcologically can prepare for the situation of getting shot at, the full effectiveness of this would be negated by the fact that you *KNOW* the people shooting "at you" are not aiming at you at all. Therefore, all you are training on is the ability to shoot while hearing gun fire, which can be accomplished in much safer manners.

Now, if these people are shooting close enough to hear or feel the bullet fly by, then that's just [edited] insane and I would never in a billion years submit myself to that environment.

Thanks for joining the forum and giving your input. Please try to watch the language.