Training & it's evolution over time. [Archive] - Glock Talk


View Full Version : Training & it's evolution over time.

08-16-2011, 13:36
I was reading Paul Weston's book Combat Shooting for Police and I was humbled by the standards it sets for the students.

In his descriptions of the PPC, Close Combat Course and Colt's-Indiana University Combat Match Course it seems to demand a much higher degree of accuracy and skill with a DA revolver than most people today are capible with semi-auto pistols.

The modern trend in classes seems to be Force on Force, close range combatives and full up scenario training, but is this neglecting a very important aspects of firearm training - the ability to place a bullet into a target at a distance so you can get the most out of your weapon?

Do you feel this trend is a reflection of trainers "training students to the fight they will likely face", and therefore a positive evolution in the way training has progressed...

A reflection of marksmanship standard's falling for both students (coming in with the skill) and trainers (demanding the skill of their students) and a negative development...

Or are people today just teaching a different piece of the puzzle than was highlighted in the past?

I know, it kinda sounds like I'm petitioning for an article on your reflections on Handgun Training from 1960's to 2011...and if you chose to go that way, I'd be thrilled...but, seriously...has firearm training progressed, regressed, lost or gained, or just changed with the times - and in your opinion, for better or worse?

Mas Ayoob
08-16-2011, 21:30
Every now and then, a long shot with a handgun -- and more often, a precise shot with one, perhaps at closer range -- makes or breaks the outcome. I for one am saddened to see that all but disappear from the curriculum, at least insofar as the distance shots. Fortunately, the coming of the patrol carbine as almost standard has gone far toward making up for that.

The history of it was training to shore up the weaknesses seen in very close, very fast situations where cops were getting killed. It was easy to overlook the cases where officer's skill at distances helped keep them alive.

Overall, I think the training today is better than ever, with the integration of hand to hand skills, tactical movement, etc. I still wish more folks in harm's way would find some time to "get the range" and be ready if they ever have to take a long shot and have only a pistol with which to do it.


08-25-2011, 12:12
The history of it was training to shore up the weaknesses seen in very close, very fast situations where cops were getting killed.

Were these situations not trained for because it was felt that they had no safe way to do so, because of the lack of integration in training (firearms instructors teach firearms, combatives people teach combatives, and we "Do Not Mix!" mentality) or because of the slow information flow at the time limiting the exchange of incident information reflecting the need for it?

Mas Ayoob
08-26-2011, 22:48
Both of those were factors, as well as inertia: "The way we've always done it is good enough" kind of thinking.

I can remember back in the 1970s being called a radical when, in the pages of the police professional journal Law and Order, I called for homogenous use of force training that encompassed the bare hand, the intermediate force weapons, and the gun. Over the years, led by such progressive agencies as Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, the integrated use of force model became standard, though it's by no means universal.

It's the nature of logic that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We shore up the places where we're weak, and cops were getting killed at close range. The training time and budget had to be trimmed somewhere to make the time for improved training up close, and part of the sacrifice was long range handgun training.