USPSA Range Officer problems

[bloodfarts]

Please no more e-mails.
It appears that many of you have had the same experiences and you dont want to post it.
I will honor your requests

Thank you for the response-
keep shooting.....

 

[Hoser]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

And your source?

I went through Ro and CRO training a long time ago. Like 10+ years ago.

 

[Chiller]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Please forgive.

Why would a USPSA RO be relevant to the discussion here?

Outwardly it would appear as you are asking us to engage in a discussion that you evidently "have a dog in this fight".

 

[Chiller]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bloodfarts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question:

It has been brought to my attention that possibly around 70% of the people that take the USPSA Range Officer class don’t complete it all the way (with certain Instructors.)

If you have had a good or bad experience with USPSA RO's, please contact me or reply.

I personally do not work for or represent the USPSA in any way.
Just thought it was an amazing statistic and wanted to see if others have had the same bad/ good experience that I did recently.

Thank you-

"Farts"
</div></div>

While you may not “represent” the USPSA you do appear to have an agenda

 

[Lt. Arclight]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

What is an "Interrigator"? Why do YOU have an axe to grind? Sour grapes can be sour as a......

 

[Chiller]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lt. Arclight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is an "Interrigator"? Why do YOU have an axe to grind? Sour grapes can be sour as a...... </div></div>

The QBQ is in the interest of the hide. I am concerned that the OP would appear to have an agenda and is in some manner trying to use others to justify his opinion.


Across the board I try to play with all my cards showing.

 

[Lt. Arclight]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Chiller, my comment was meant for the OP-not you. He listed "interrigator" in his profile. I agree with you 100%.

 

[smokshwn]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

You're rumor mongering would be in direct opposition to my firsthand experiences for the last 6 years of actively shooting USPSA Pistol and Multigun.

Care to expand on from who and where you heard these rumors? and furthermore which instructors allow non completion of the course yet grant certification?

It is obvious that you do not have a concept of how the RO class works. You attend a two day class which covers about 10-12 hours of didactic learning of the rulebook and 4-5 hours of practical time on the range. After the class you have a period of time to sign into a web database and take the written test administered by NROI. This makes it pretty unlikely to get the 70% pencil whipping figure you stated.

 

[bloodfarts]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Agenda?
Pencil whipping?
Sorry guys. I must have entered the Angry room.
The 70% came from a current working volunteer.
I did go through the RO class and missed only one on the final.
I thought this is where you go if you want to learn from others and communicate.
Sorry I wasted everyone time.
( by the way I shoot USPSA, IDPA etc. and love it.)
I was just wondering if certain instructors are playing god, only letting in certain people, ethnic backgrounds, education level etc in.

Ill just keep quiet and let all my friends with the same intrests just walk into a possible mess.
Sorry to make angry, more angry.
Carry on-

Semper Fi-

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bloodfarts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Agenda?

I did go through the RO class and missed only one on the final.

</div></div>

Correction - here to axe grind AND chest pound.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It has been brought to my attention that possibly around 70% of the people that take the USPSA Range Officer class don’t complete it all the way</div></div>
If this is the case, then the ones who do complete the class must be a super-elite range-officering force, not unlike the Navy SEALS.

-z

 

[bloodfarts]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

9H
wow.
I know your not mad at me.
Who are you really angry with?
Was in Mommy or Daddy?
Wife gone? I figured.
Hows your relationship with your kid(s)
Let's talk this out..... Your safe here
Group hug to start this out on a good note?

I love you all.

 

[Chiller]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bloodfarts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Sorry to make angry, more angry.
Carry on-

Semper Fi-
</div></div>

I am sorry, I don’t think I crapped in the punch bowl and pretended like nothing happened...?

 

[bloodfarts]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

well. along with rifles, some people also carry a sidearm.
Uspsa idpa etc is how most professionals keep their skills sharp.
Since you replied to this more than once, Do you have a good/bad USPSA/ IDPA experience?
( Here is where you would say something positive or negative about the range officer experience. )
The glass is half full.

I can name several situations where I have had GREAT USPSA/ IDPA experiences.
I would follow some RO's into war.
( see, a positive place also )

Life is good. we are winning. be happy. We have the biggest bomb's in the greatest sub's. Lets have a drink.
be happy

 

[Chiller]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vkj9V482e7M"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vkj9V482e7M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Congrats FartFace- I think you set a new record - only 12 posts before insulting someone's mother.

And you wonder why you don't fit in around here right off the bat?

My guess is Hugh he got run off the usual IDPA/IPSC sites where people have tied a real name to a screen name and had to find a new home in which to air his grievances.

You came to the wrong place FartFace. Now go away.

 

[shankster..]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congrats FartFace- <span style="font-weight: bold">I think you set a new record - only 12 posts before insulting someone's mother.</span>

And you wonder why you don't fit in around here right off the bat? </div></div>


He is my hero.

 

[johndoe]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vkj9V482e7M"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vkj9V482e7M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

</div></div>

Now that is some funny shit!!

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bloodfarts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Uspsa idpa etc is how most professionals keep their skills sharp.
</div></div>

I call horse shit on that.

--Fargo007

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

He meant the smart ones.

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I respectfully disagree. It is 100% fine as a competition game/sport but it doesn't have any tangible relationship to solving real problems that involve armed people.

So much so that enough of it will erase a lot of good habits that are difficult to build. No agency trains people that way.

Watch a match and see how many of them press-check, and close the dust cover. How many scan after shooting the targets. How many of them have developed a reflex to immediately and smartly unload the firearm after that last target. They specifically avoid the use of cover because it costs time to do so. Shoot from the doorway.

If you shot one of the stages as if the targets were real you would time out on every stage, and irritate the staff and shooters.

Even the guns and equipment used do not reflect what LE or military agencies would use. A race gun isn't a fighting gun.

For instance, nobody wants to try kneeling while a giant muzzle brake was fired in an apartment four inches from their eyes? LE/MIL buying a lot of 9 shot tube, 22" shotguns these days? Custom 45 round AR mags? This gear is required to be competitive, but wouldn't be chosen as equipment to issue.

I am NOT TRASHING any sport. It has a place as a shooting competition, and does give people time behind the gun. The people that do well at it shoot fast and accurately. Some astonishingly so.

What it definitely does not teach, reinforce or reflect is real life tactics or strategy. I personally don't think the two are very compatible.



The OP's statement that most armed professionals do this is <span style="font-weight: bold">horse shit.</span> Some might attend a match or two as I do, but that's recreational shooting on their own, not training behind a lesson plan sanctioned by the agency. It is his statement, made up from whole cloth, that I address with all this, not poking a stick at you Zak though I do disagree ;-)

--Fargo007

 

[c ward]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I think this guy , http://www.vikingtactics.com/ , may disagree with You about the value of competition in your training program .

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

That's usually what slow shooters say.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Just kidding with the eye poke. I can't believe anyone is seriously debating this anymore. So much has been so well articulated that there are no novel arguments on either side left.

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Sure - I understand that it's difficult to find two people who disagree.

When did I say I had a problem with competition? I love it, and it's a great way to raise the training bar. I run usually one match every month, many posted in the competition section here on the hide, and I compete regularly.

You are misrepresenting my points, and avoiding the ones that are inconvenient. Insulting me because you disagree may be analgesic, but it doesn't support your argument, or point out exactly why something I wrote is incorrect. You are of course still welcome to do so.

Thanks,

--Fargo007

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

K - NP. You snuck in as I was replying.

I actually don't frequent sites where this has been beaten to death before, so I do not mean to drag a dead horse here. But I did smell it's poop.

LOL

--Fargo007

 

[Lowlight]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

All those Socom guys going to those game gunners must have it wrong,

From "Jerry the Burner" to Frank Garcia, Benie Cooley, the list is endless. They don't teach tactics they teach speed, accuracy, rapid acquisition and follow up.

A lot of agencies do authorize and pay agents to compete, we get guys who come to SH events, including operators and instructors. They don't always go under the official flag but they do get reimbursed for it. It is absolutely a training evolution for them.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I had one former USMC sniper (currently ARNG-SF) say the Steel Safari was better "training" than he'd ever had in the service. YMMV.

I don't call it training - that was the word he used.

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I will say that precision/LR tactical comps I have been to do really do draw on actual training scenarios. In fact they are almost universally based on them.

It's the guy standing in the doorway with a 1911 or an AR, racing around like a crackhouse on fire, banging away at 11 steel plates, and fooling himself into thinking he has "cleared the house" that gets me calling BS.

A lot of them can shoot fast and accurately, and a few of them can teach it. That's not the end of it though. Nobody is going to ask them how to clear a stairway, deal with a barricaded suspect, stack, etc.

If good tactics, use of cover, and actual issue gear are not tossed aside in favor of gimmicks to gain fractions of seconds, yeah - it's all good. The separation has to be made though.

--Fargo007

 

[paraman1]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Speed <span style="font-weight: bold">IS</span> a tactic and a damn good one .

 

[Lowlight]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Nobody asks them how to clear a room, they ask them how to control the system fast and accurately. Again, you underestimate how many of them actually attend classes from these shooters.

Hackathorne, Vickers, both attended IDPA in their past, along with countless other members of their field.

You are not giving these level of operators the credit to understand exactly what they are there to learn.

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

LL,

I totally understand why they go to them, and what they are there to learn. No disagreement that there are FANTASTIC skills in running the platform. I think Jerry is revolutionary.

What I am pointing out is that the techniques that work for those guys to win those comps are different than the tactics used to solve an actual situation, substantially similar.

Take a relatively benign stage as an example:

If we took such a shooter and had them handle five paper targets 5' apart laterally inside a doorway using simunitions. Have him do it with regard for score only. Then replace the targets with other role players with simunitions... would that shooter address it the same way?

Would the operators who came to train on fast/accurate & handling skills with that shooter do it the same way?

I guess the difference is -> Once they have a target, they certainly will. What happens before and after is (my only argument) substantially different.

--Fargo007

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

The first post that brought this whole thing up used the phrase <span style="font-style: italic">"to stay sharp"</span>. You're actually the one who brought tactics and training and everything else into it-- creating a straw man opposing argument that USPSA is the end-all of tactical training.

Practical competition shooting is about speed, marksmanship, and gun-handling skills, and it is about problem solving. Tactics is another way to refer to solutions to particular sets of problems.

The guy who has a solid background in fighting tactics relevant to his job <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> pushes his limits in speed, accuracy, and gun-handling twice a month at USPSA matches will be dramatically more effective at solving problems with a pistol than the guy who never shoots matches because they aren't tactical.

In other words, his toolset will be <span style="font-style: italic">sharper</span> all around.

And <span style="font-style: italic">that's</span> why the smart ones will do it.

 

[c ward]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

A quote from Rob Leatham about competition and its value as part of a training program ,


I recently ran a class of military shooters, and among other things, ran them through the IDPA classifier, participated in a local steel match, and shot the Arizona State IDPA Championships!

Let me share with you some interesting observations. They get more wound up and nervous in a match than they do in combat! Why? Because they have time to think about it and get tense! I respect these guys' opinions more than ANY so called tactician out there who is sure he knows the tricks to surviving an armed confrontation. These guys have been doing that a bunch lately and think IDPA and IPSC shooting both offer much to the testing phase of ones ability.

On the other hand, they to a man do not agree with the philosophies that either is inherently more practical. All the little things like which way do you turn or where you reload is something we can discuss all day on the range, but on the battlefield, men do things that may not be considered practical or tactical and live because they did it fast, accurately and decisively.

And, there are those who did it "right" by some folks' judgement and still lost. We all have our ideas of how it should be done, and the rules of the existing games are just that, someones' ideas. To say going to any kind of shooting event will teach you technique that will get you killed is idiotic and irresponsible. Guys, it is cool to have your own plan but do not try to pass it off as gospel to the rest of us. A discussion of technique and philosophy seldom ends in agreement, but that does not make the other guy wrong or stupid.
These are just games designed to test your abilities in a very controlled and pre-planned arena. Who wins is your best shot, not your most likely survivor. That can not be tested under the clock. However, those that master executing under the timer are probably more likely to do well in a pressure situation, than someone who chokes, misses or gets procedural penalties. This is a point the boys all agree on, thus they train hard and test themselves in the arena of competition to see what they know and whether they can do it.



I think most of the tactical guy's stay away from competition because there is a ruler so to speak by which everybody is measured and they don't want to be found lacking .The question you have to ask is your ego more important than learning new skills .

 

[HiCapMag]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's usually what slow shooters say. </div></div>

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Thanks,I needed that.

 

[Graham]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

The military is a team sport. The training there doesn't prioritize individual knowledge and skill, that's not its purpose.

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Zero disagreement here.

You're making my point in that the skill needs to be cherry picked out of the competition context and brought up against solid tactics to be an asset. You did that.

Thanks,

--Fargo007

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

Seems like there is some "point drift" going on:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">respectfully disagree. It is 100% fine as a competition game/sport but <span style="text-decoration: underline">it doesn't have any tangible relationship to solving real problems that involve armed people</span>.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">So much so that enough of it will erase a lot of good habits that are difficult to build</span>. No agency trains people that way.
</div></div>

Remember, <span style="font-style: italic">you're</span> the one who made up the straw man argument against competition shooting. None of the "pro competition" folks made any claims that it <span style="font-style: italic">was training</span>. You went off claiming that it had zero value to fighting ("no tangible relationship"). Now it seems like there have been some compelling arguments from several sources that there is some value to it. If that proves your point, it's not the one you started out with.

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

The real straw man is the assertion that I am anti-competition. I'm a rifle match director at two clubs, and have been doing it with great success for five years. If you come out to PA, I know can convince you of only three things.

1 - I have a face that favors radio versus TV.
2 - I run a great match.
3 - I can shoot.

In context, this is what I said.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am NOT TRASHING any sport. It has a place as a shooting competition, and does give people time behind the gun. The people that do well at it shoot fast and accurately. Some astonishingly so.

What it definitely does not teach, reinforce or reflect is real life tactics or strategy. I personally don't think the two are very compatible.</div></div>

Meaning that it teaches to shoot fast and accurately. The decisions made to do well, or win in the competition aren't going to be the same ones made to prevail in a deadly force situation, and that is the source of the irrelevance/incompatibility I address. The poster above pointed that out in that he will take only the juicy plum from comps, and combine it with solid tactics that were trained into him.

The second statement refers to (e.g.) the reward given to the shooter (in time/score) for bypassing the use of cover. It takes more time to corner properly than it does to stand in the doorway.

If someone is shooting a comp and proceeding through it like they want to fight, that IS training, and not what I'm talking about at all.

Please do try some sim or FoF active shooter training if you have not, and the approach difference I am failing to convince you of will come into focus.

The horse is definitely dead now.

--Fargo007

 

[PLeighton]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you come out to PA, I know can convince you of only three things.

1 - I have a face that favors radio versus TV.
2 - I run a great match.
3 - I can shoot.
</div></div>
Ok Freddy, I agree with two out of the three here, but who says that you can shoot?

- On the topic of USPSA and training:

USPSA needs to be taken for what it is, a standalone sport.
There are a great deal of tactics and equipment that have their roots in this sport.
(There is a reason why folks like Todd Jarrett, and the MagPul guys do so well in the training market.)
I think that the military and law enforcement community has also benefited greatly from the USPSA due to this.
Just a few examples of this being; extended rails on AR type platforms to allow for a more forward grip thus enabling more positive control over the weapon, the use of dot type optics and later the adding of these as secondary weapon sights on various weapon systems, magazine systems that allow for faster mag changes so that folks can stay in the fight.
The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the point.

I think it is safe to say the USPSA is a great asset to the shooting community as a whole,
because it finally substantiates a definition other than hunting when it comes to the term sport shooting.
This is a very legitimate, (albeit not necessary any more due to recent SCOTUS decisions), way to tie weapons that have been deemed "Assault Weapons" to a very legitimate sport.

Is USPSA a good source of training when it comes to an operational shooter?
For the most part no, because of the reasons previously mentioned that would most certainly develop training scars if USPSA was used as a primary source of training.
There is no substitute for tactics training and force on force sim training has been an outstanding emergent technology.

However, trigger time is trigger time.
USPSA is fun and as long as there is adequate training on a regular basis for the folks "on the job",
then I think it can be a great source to hone one's skills in a few fundamental areas.
Namely, target acquisition, engagement time, accuracy, and mag changes.

Bottom line, USPSA is a sport not unlike paint ball or shooting High Power.
You can take things from them and use them to your benefit, but it is not a training doctrine.

 

[Graham]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems like there is some "point drift" going on:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">respectfully disagree. It is 100% fine as a competition game/sport but <span style="text-decoration: underline">it doesn't have any tangible relationship to solving real problems that involve armed people</span>.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">So much so that enough of it will erase a lot of good habits that are difficult to build</span>. No agency trains people that way.
</div></div></div></div>The relationship to solving real problems is evident in a properly run sniper competition. The primary benefit of competition to solving problems is that it develops unconscious competence with fundamental shooting skills, leaving one free to think about other things under stress. Unfortunately, official training should not be mistaken for an individual standard because that training is developed and implemented for the benefit of the institution.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I didn't say you were anti-competition, and whether or not you like competition for its own sake is kind of orthogonal to the point of disagreement. A straw man is arguing against a weaker version of an argument and declaring you've refuted the <span style="font-style: italic">actual</span> argument.

If you object to the phrase <span style="font-style: italic">'"pro-competition" folks'</span> in that it was meant to exclude you, I put it in quotations to indicate it was shorthand for <span style="font-style: italic">"the people in this thread who disagree that competition shooting has no tangible relationship to solving real problems that involve armed people"</span>, which is quite a mouthful.

FWIW, and relating to more assumptions you've made in this thread, I have done a bunch of FoF and it more than any other single factor has convinced me that competition shooting is relevant to fighting.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The primary benefit of competition to solving problems is that it develops unconscious competence with fundamental shooting skills, leaving one free to think about other things under stress. Unfortunately, official training should not be mistaken for an individual standard because that training is developed and implemented for the benefit of the institution.</div></div>

Gee, this is almost exactly what I said here
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The guy who has a solid background in fighting tactics relevant to his job and pushes his limits in speed, accuracy, and gun-handling twice a month at USPSA matches will be dramatically more effective at solving problems with a pistol than the guy who never shoots matches because they aren't tactical.
</div></div>
and does not really resemble
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it doesn't have any tangible relationship to solving real problems that involve armed people.
</div></div>

You might as well just admit you've drifted from what you opened with.

 

[Downzero]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I would like to know the OP's USPSA number.

 

[Graham]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like to know the OP's USPSA number. </div></div>Why?

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
FWIW, and relating to more assumptions you've made in this thread, I have done a bunch of FoF and it more than any other single factor has convinced me that competition shooting is relevant to fighting.
</div></div>

I'm interested in this assertion. I'm not crossing sabers. I'd really like to see the perspective on exactly how FoF did that convincing.

Thanks,

--Fargo007

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I'll be brief:

1. the competition guys are better at gun handling and shooting (speed and accuracy)

2. competition guys are generally better at problem solving. this might be due to because #1 is not an issue

I'll just quote something I wrote on another forum somewhat recently
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Practical shooting sports can do something very well that is related to fighting and that is: to evolve superior gun-handling, speed, and marksmanship skills. Part of what makes this possible is objective grading. If a person can rock hard, complex USPSA stages with perfect gun handling on a weekly or monthly basis, with stages that have shooting challenges much, much more complex than any likely defensive encounter, then the marksmanship, speed, and gun-handling parts of defense will all be second-nature, not additional complications and unknowns, in the encounter.


"Gaming" is often derided on "tactical" forums, but "gaming" is just the process of exploiting every advantage you can. Often times the stage designer has intended the stage to be shot one way or another - if you can find the "loophole" you can get an advantage.

This is problem solving, which is a great skill to develop, and it is problem solving with some of the "tools" of self-defense.

In real life, the "rules" are different - much more liberal in some ways, much more strict in others - but in a defensive encounter you must still "solve the problem." The better your mental toolset has been tuned, the better potential outcome you have. The more practice your problem-solving organ has had, the better you can do.

In other words, "gaming" is exactly what you want to do in real life: you want to exploit every advantage you can, using defensive tools.

Many warriers have commented that "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game."

On another forum mindset came up, and I wrote that <span style="font-style: italic">one of the critical elements in my conception of mindset is a technique of problem solving that is quick, pragmatic, and absolutely not limited by preconceptions (ie thinking outside the box).</span>

...


Any problem solving activity exercises your brain and makes you better at problem solving.

It is not about a particular set of rules (eg, competition rules), it is about becoming better at finding good, quick solutions to problems given any rule set.
</div></div>

 

[c ward]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The military is a team sport. The training there doesn't prioritize individual knowledge and skill, that's not its purpose. </div></div>

Every MOS in the army has a very well defined and tested set of individual skills that are the core of training , IE basic training and AIT . The larger unit , Squad , Platoon , Company , etc. , all build on these skills .

It was my experience the soldiers that excelled at the individual skills also excelled at the larger unit stuff also .

There are many things in the military that are a team effort but to say that the military is a team at the total exclusion of the individual part is wrong . One of the most coveted awards , the Expert Infantryman's Badge , is a totally individual effort .

 

[Downzero]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like to know the OP's USPSA number. </div></div>Why? </div></div>

Because I would like to know if he is actually a USPSA Range Officer.

Anyone who wonders if I am or not is free to look mine up, A-63438

 

[fargo007]

Re: USPSA Range Officer problems

I totally appreciate the concept of shooting fast & accurately and making handling skills second nature being very positive and applicable skills that competition shooting (not exclusively though) can develop.

My statement that there was <span style="font-weight: bold">no</span> tangible relationship was too broad, and excluded those.

Conversely, you put forth only the sweet and not the salty.

Gaming to me cannot translate out of a pejorative context in the way that you are portraying it. Tactical 'Weaselcraft' (a Mas Ayoob term I think) is what you would use in FoF. Competitors will justifiably break balls if they see 'gaming' happening. Finding a different way to shoot a stage IS problem solving, but out of a totally different toolbox. When that term is used, I understand it to refer to things like:

- loading weaker ammunition to barely cycle the firearm and meet power requirements.
- scripting out well ahead of time where each target is beforehand, planning reloads and even footsteps.
- stepping outside the defensive spirit of the sport.
- avoiding cover, reducing realism, and non-tactical movement in the interest of score.

The reasons I see FoF as relevant much more than competitive sport shooting include:

- no prior knowledge of where, how many, how armed, or intentions of the role players.
- no rule book.
- use the gun they give you (since nobody issues race guns).
- role players move, especially when shot at.
- and of course they shoot back.
- shoot/no-shoot decisions based on multiple factors.
- techniques used in comps such as planting one's feet and blasting, not cornering or covering, cover crowding, not displacing show up clearly as blue paint smears.
- must problem solve and plan dynamically - AS the situation unfolds.
- you don't decide when it's over.


I simply tasted a lot more "train how you fight" meat in FoF, for the reasons pointed out above, thus I didn't reach the same conclusion that you do. FoF for me exposed <span style="font-weight: bold">itself</span> as extremely relevant.

That said, I re-state that I AM a competition guy, and re-concede that all this is becomes easier to do if the combat marksmanship and handling skills reinforced in comps results in reflex vs. conscious thought better spent elsewhere.

Thanks,

--Fargo007