Ron Avery on Gunfight Training: Hype, Myth, and BS

Training Training and Tactics
1

Ron Avery had a practical and insightful set of articles at PoliceOne.com (links included) about a year or so ago on Gunfight Training:

[ol]
[li]Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part one)
[/li][ul]
[li]Hype: “Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.”
[/li][li]Myth: “If your heart rate goes above 140 BPM, you won’t be able to see your sights.”
[/li][li]BS: “If you keep missing your target, you need to slow down.”
[/li][/ul]
[li]Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part two)
[/li][ul]
[li]Hype: “Speed’s fine but accuracy is final.”
[/li][li]Hype: “You use your handgun to fight your way to your rifle.”
[/li][li]Myth: “In a real situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.”
[/li][li]BS: “The square range is BS!”
[/li][li]BS: “Competition will get you killed.”
[/li][/ul]
[li]Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part three)
[/li][ul]
[li]Hype: “Experience is the key to performance.”
[/li][li]BS: “The street is the only real test.”
[/li][li]Hype: “I am ‘well trained’ compared to the average guy on the street.”
[/li][li]BS: “If you fail in training, you will develop a ‘training scar’ that will impact you negatively in the future so don’t ever let your students fail.”
[/li][li]Hype: “I am an ‘advanced’ shooter.”
[/li][li]Hype: “I am an ‘operator,’ a ‘tactical operator,’ an ‘advanced tactical operator,’ an ‘Advanced, tactical elite operator,’ an ‘advanced, tactical, elite operational warrior/operator/athlete,’ an ‘advanced firearms instructor,’ an ‘advanced tactical firearms instructor,’ or blah, blah, blah…”
[/li][/ul]
[li]Gunfight training: Hype, myth, and BS (part four)
[/li][ul]
[li]Myth: “I will win because I am ‘more tactical’ or ‘more experienced’ than the other guy.”
[/li][li]Hype and BS: “My technique is tactical, not competition-shooting technique.”
[/li][/ul][/ol]

2

Great reading, thanks for posting. Also apropos a recent thread in which demo-ing in front of students was discussed, it was really interesting to read the author’s thoughts on the subject. Really thought provoking all the way around. And not to oversimplify what he wrote, but it is interesting, if not a bit illuminating, to see him place such a high value on competition as a test and proving ground of real world practical shooting performance that in fact best mirrors one’s real world fighting or defensive capacity with a gun. I wonder how many of the top tier trainers currently, or have in the past, competed, and what importance they place on practical shooting competitions.

3

Ron had a more recent and expanded article on competitive shooting as firearms training:

Will competition get you killed? – The younger generation of police officers are becoming interested in competition as a way to “put their skills to the test”

There was also this article on demoing drills by another author/instrucor at PoliceOne.com:

Firearms training: Shoot to thrill or teach the skill? Do firearms instructors have the right and privilege of discharging several hundred rounds during the course of instruction?

4

Please look into Frank Proctor, doesn’t get much more Top Tier than that guy.

5

I have often stated my opinion on competition, specifically that I encourage it. While there is a lot more to a gunfight than running around and putting 2 shots on each target, it is a great test of certain aspects, done with stress. And while a competition in front of peers is not the same thing as fighting for your life with a gun, it is still a form of stress that will help with stress mitigation.

I prefer USPSA to IDPA, but any competition is good.

Most of the high performing students in my classes are also competitive shooters.

Eta: some thoughts on the article coming soon, once I get to my laptop.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

6

Cut from the article:

Myth: “In a real situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.”
Reality — If your training is inadequate in volume, specificity. or intensity (as in, not enough adaptive stress), then you MAY perform subpar.

However, I have performed above my training in both real and competitive situations and have seen too many others I have trained RISE to the challenge and do extremely well in situations where others fail. Mental programming and conditioning along with adequate preparation in other areas is the key to better performance.

Thoughts — Bottom line is to train at the proper level of intensity and specificity and you will not only do well, you may do even better than you did in training. I have trained many people now that have gone on to win their fight under really tough conditions and performed really well. Stop telling people that they are going to suck when they get into a deadly force situation. It is not true!

I have a different take on this saying, although it is also similar in some aspects. For me, and my guys, it isn’t so much about not performing, or “sucking”, during a real situation. It’s more about the fact that what you have practiced before combat, is what you will do IN combat. You won’t magically develop new skills in that situation, you know what you know. It is more a reinforcement of always practicing, doing drills, maintaining or improving skills.

Not to detract from what Mr. Avery states, just a different perspective.

7

This is something I am going to hit on.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

8

Jack,
Why do you prefer USPSA to IDPA?
Thx

9

From the article:

Myth: “In a real situation, you will not rise to the occasion but default to your level of training.”
Reality — If your training is inadequate in volume, specificity. or intensity (as in, not enough adaptive stress), then you MAY perform subpar.

However, I have performed above my training in both real and competitive situations and have seen too many others I have trained RISE to the challenge and do extremely well in situations where others fail. Mental programming and conditioning along with adequate preparation in other areas is the key to better performance.

Thoughts — Bottom line is to train at the proper level of intensity and specificity and you will not only do well, you may do even better than you did in training. I have trained many people now that have gone on to win their fight under really tough conditions and performed really well. Stop telling people that they are going to suck when they get into a deadly force situation. It is not true!

The quoted “You will not rise to the occasion, but default to your level of training.” was even my sig line for a while.

I disagree with Mr Avery’s thought that the concept is a myth, though I agree with the essence of what he is saying. Maybe he is just reading it differently than I am, or maybe I am a simpleton that doesn’t get what he is saying.

My perception of the issue is that we cannot expect to be good at things that we do not do well. Pretty obvious statement, I know.
If your working knowledge of firearms is limited to blasting through a few mags at the local dump at random pieces of debris, do you think that you will be able to make a 1 second draw from concealment to hit a partial head target at 10 meters? If you have never pushed yourself to go as fast as you can, how fast do you expect to go when you are fighting for your life? If you can’t hit a 5 1/2 inch circle at 25 yards under generous time constraints, do you think that you will be able to do so in the dark, while someone is shooting at you?

I don’t think that the “default to your level of training” necessarily means that you will suck when put under duress, but rather that your best performance in training/practice/evaluation is pretty much going to be the upper limit of your performance in a fight (barring the “luck” variable).

10

I have no idea who Ron Avery is (so had to read his bio). It would appear that he was a deputy in CO and is a big fan of competition shooting. Is this his claim to fame (don’t know if I am missing something or not here)??

Reading through his statements, I am not really sure what “hype” means. Does that mean that the statements he listed are FALSE? TRUE? Or just over used??? Don’t know.

I would agree with F2S. If you never practice, you aren’t going to MAGICALLY get better in a gun fight. I also think that if you SUCK on the square range, you will SUCK (X2) in the real world.

The thing that bothers me about competition shooters is they never see the negative side (like all the bad habits that people get from it in order to win at the “game”). Of COURSE, there are people the can and do realize the differences between a game and the real world. There are others though that cannot (see it all the time in tactical based training classes, LE incidents, etc).

I don’t know if people realize this or not, but you can compete (which is a good thing) without the silly BS. We do it all the time in “tactical” classes. In fact, most all of the well known firearms instructors incorporate many timed drills, tests, team “games”, etc in order to push the students. All without creating any bad habits.

From what I know, many of the Tier 1 firearms instructors that I talk to or know a lot about do not compete in any (or rarely) gun games. is that a clue? Don’t know, but is something to consider.

Before I get a bunch of butt hurt comments from gun game guru’s, I think EVERYONE can learn something from competition shooters. In fact, I would love to get some training from Rob Leatham.

C4

11

IDPA has a lot of rules that a shooter has to abide by to avoid incurring procedural penalties, many of which are highly subject to RO interpretation/perception/opinion. This doesn’t matter much to someone that is just out shooting and having a good time, but for those of us that are competitive, it makes things annoying.

USPSA is pretty much all about shooting and stage planning, with an edge to the better shooter. The top shooters will be the ones that shoot the best, and at the tippy top will be the ones that shoot the best AND execute the best approach to the stage. They will have more targets, more movement, and generally will require more mental dexterity.

USPSA also has a better classification system. The D, C, B, A, M, GM progression gives a better identification of true shooting skill at the B, A, M, GM level. IDPA “Master” (their highest classification) is about equal to a “B” class USPSA shooter.

Yeah, USPSA allows stage walk-throughs, and arguably more “gaming” than IDPA, but with the number of targets that one will be expected to remember, along with planning reloads (Production, Limited 10, and Revolver guys know what I mean), the walk-through is a necessary aspect of the game. However, none of that detracts from the shooting skill of those that perform at the upper levels.

Way back when, when I made “A” in USPSA Limited, I was practically bursting at the seams (that was years ago, and my membership has long since expired), because I knew how much work it took to get there. When I recently qualified as a “Master” in IDPA, while it’s nice to be able to say, I was not nearly as enthusiastic as I knew what that level of performance really means when compared to equivalent USPSA shooters.

Don’t take my criticisms of IDPA to stop you from shooting it.
I still shoot them both, along with Steel Challenge. They are all competitions, and I can verify/track performance that I had not pre-planned, while essentially “cold”.

As far as competitions go, I prefer “run-n-gun” competitions such as USPSA, 3-gun, and IDPA (though you could call it “walk-n-shoot” if you really want to get people upset), but there is a lot to be said for even fundamental competitive events such as bulls-eye, PPC, and high power. Not nearly as exciting, but great for honing specific skills.

12

I can certainly see both sides.
I also participate in both, I think even though IDPA is supposed to be more “reality” based, the majority still game it.
Guys wearing fishing vests shooting glock 34 with a blade tech holster.
While I tend to either run IWB with a subcompact or OWB pancake style gear and guns that I would actually be using in reality.
This obviously is a disadvantage towards “winning” the game, however I see it as and advantage in potentialy winning a real engagement.
USPSA is more fun, the simple fact that you get to shoot alot more makes it so.

13

You are missing something huge. I’d say his claim to fame isn’t that he was a deputy or a competition shooter but rather that he’s an accomplished instructor that’s been teaching full-time for years with a very impressive list of past clients. Avery’s bio

Also, to say he’s a big fan of competition shooting may be an understatement. He was a USPSA (then IPSC) national champion. He took some time off from competing (and worked through some injuries), but recently started shooting matches again.

Never see the negative side? That’s a gross exaggeration. I think most competition shooters that are LE/MIL or just interested in self-defense will readily tell you the negatives of competition shooting. We simply think the pros outweigh the cons.

LE Incidents? What LE incident are you referring to that competition shooting played a negative part in the outcome?

I’ve heard from many LEOs that credit competition shooting to helping them in shootings or near shootings, but don’t know of any that have said competition shooting hurt them.

And some do or did actively compete. (I could insert the Pat MacNamara link here.)

14

Hmm, don’t think I missed anything. I guess if I was into competition shooting, I would be super impressed, but to me there are instructors with backgrounds that I am way more impressed with (from a tactics/tactical background).

You could very be right about his ability to instruct though (don’t know and don’t have any friends that have trained with him so I have nothing to base it off of).

Never see the negative side? That’s a gross exaggeration. I think most competition shooters that are LE/MIL or just interested in self-defense will readily tell you the negatives of competition shooting. We simply think the pros outweigh the cons.

LE Incidents? What LE incident are you referring to that competition shooting played a negative part in the outcome?

Many do not see the negative side. Maybe they aren’t smart enough to realize it? I know many Civy’s that do not realize it.

The first one that comes to mind is the officer that dumped mag (while in a gun fight) after only firing less than half the magazine (as she would in a match).

On the tactical training side, I see competition shooters fail to use cover, have zero understanding of tactics in many different ways as they are always thinking about how to shoot a target as fast as possible and instead of doing it in the safest or most defensive way possible.

I’ve heard from many LEOs that credit competition shooting to helping them in shootings or near shootings, but don’t know of any that have said competition shooting hurt them.

Actually what they are benefitting from is the fact that they had a goal and set out to achieve it. This forced them to log many hours and thousands of rounds on the range. They probably also sought out better training than what they previously had (all good things).

IMHO, it is ok if someone isn’t into competition shooting as they can still have goals and can grow as a shooter (without possibly creating bad habits). If you haven’t seen or don’t know, there are some shooters out there that have never shot in a competition match that will absolutely burn you down (all without shooting down loaded ammo or using a race gun).

Of course there are instructors that do shoot from time to time in some regional gun games, but most of them have hit the “delete” button on gun games for many reasons and don’t seem to suffer from it.

If you are into it and can separate the good from the bad, then great!

C4

15

Exactly. I can think of multiple instructors that have a better resume of whom they have worked with.

16

Since you didn’t even mention he’s an instructor, I’d say you missed something, at least in your post. Maybe you noticed it but didn’t think it was worth mentioning. But by not including that he’s an instructor (much like yourself), you didn’t give the readers the full picture of who Ron Avery is. He’s not just a deputy that likes to compete. He’s a full-time instructor that teaches law enforcement, military and civilians.

Can you give us the full story or link, please?

17

Fair enough. So be it. I’m sure you can find instructors with more impressive resumes. But that doesn’t mean his isn’t impressive, or you shouldn’t pay attention to what he writes.

(I don’t get some of language in the article either - myth vs hype- and don’t agree with everything he wrote. But I’m smart enough not to dismiss it out of hand just because he’s not from JSOC.)

18

As someone else also indicated Ron Avery has an extensive CV in the firearms training field as well as having been in LE and competitive shooting.

Competitive shooting is a double-edged sword. You can game it to your detriment. Ron actually talked about this in a full article a month ago:

Will competition get you killed? – The younger generation of police officers are becoming interested in competition as a way to “put their skills to the test”

Those that can balance things can see the rewards.

True. However, for most the price of admission is much lower to use competitive shooting as a frequent adjunct to further training.

Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn were two of the original founders of IDPA and competed.

19

His opinion, some I agree some I do not.

Tag for later

20

Agree with some of it, there is a lot more to this discussion to be had. I do compete at a local IDPA club, however, the Match Director keeps all of the LEO together in our own squad and has a separate course of fire for us. We go with our own departmental training and don’t get scored by IDPA rules so hey, it works for me…