There is much merit to taking the time every so often and train at distances further than the norm. Although I honestly doubt you will ever have to do it in real life (juts my opinion, others definitely differ), it is a great way to work on the basics and enhance confidence. After all, in order to hit a target with a handgun at 50 or 75 yards one truly must maintain control of his handgun and adhere to the fundamentals, such as trigger squeeze, breath control, grip, etc. And, if one can hit a target at 75 yards out, he will likely be able to hit one at 10 yards with much more decisiveness.
I am not taking away from the value of training at further distances, or from those who preach it. My issue becomes when people, specifically those who are educated by reading magazine articles (all those gun magazines and blogs) and little else, who now think they may engage someone that far away.
Let's put it in perspective. 25 yards is pretty far. It is much greater than most peoples' living rooms or hallways. 50 yards is even further (duh!) and greater than most peoples' back yards. 100 yards is the length of a football field...and let's face it, if your assailant is on the other side of a football field there are probably better tactical options than engaging at that distance.
I had a discussion with an "expert" the other day who kept quoting the "21-foot rule" as his basis for long range engagement. For those of you who are not familiar, the "21-foot rule" was established in the late 1970's following a test conducted by Caliber Press that measured how close can an assailant armed with a knife be to an officer and still allow the officer to draw his sidearm and engage twice. There are a few fundamental issues with this test: 1) the officer knew he/she will be attacked with a knife, 2) there was no record of hits, or whether the two shots actually hit the assailant, and 3) the attacker was a trained knife fighter. This test has been replicated by various individuals and organizations since then, this time adding the element of surprise by the officer not knowing if the assailant has a knife or not (added to self doubt, and therefore to reaction time) and using marking pellets to see if the shots were actually effective in stopping a threat. It was discovered that a truer distance is about 35 yards! One may think that this actually helps the argument of long distance engagement, right? WRONG! Because how often do you really talk or interact with someone that far away?!?
.JPG)
Law-enforcement also learn to deal with suspect from what is called a "Reactionary gap", which is about 4-6 feet away. Once again, this may be a great ideal, but in reality hardly ever happens. We interact with others at what we call "Conversational Distance", or no more than arm's length away. Think about it, when you talk to someone, how far away are you?
We must therefore train for the ambush, for the sneak attack that is likely to occur. We accomplish that by doing two things: maintain our situational awareness and train to engage threats (either empty handed or using a tool such as a firearm) from close distances. And that is why I think that training for the longer distances is not really a waste of time, but gives novices the wrong impression of what their realistic engagement may be.
an exercise for you to conduct: measure the largest room in your house (if that is where you think your engagement may occur) and think to yourself: Do I really need to train for the 50 yard engagement? After all, focusing too much on precision and fundamentals may prove detrimental in a true engagement where accuracy may be triumphed by speed. You are better off hitting targets faster (and maybe not as precise) at closer distances than more accurate (and slower) and further ones.
Stay safe!
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services
No comments:
Post a Comment