Nice but....debate-able to some of the "old timers." A reply to my statement:
"My basic objection to heavy sims training is based on what I observed in the martial arts; those who spent inordinate amounts of time on free-sparring, and not enough on keeping the basics, were a simple, if frustrating experience: That is, they were highly enthusiastic losers in free-sparring against disciplined, basics-trained opponents.
Almost regardless of style or mental approach, they were a flurry of sloppy, enthusiastic, techniques that were a hazard more from the volume than the skill level. Sims, unless very carefully directed, risks turning into a messy equivalent of lasertag, and risks building bad habits. To keep it on track requires oversight, supervision and work. Just letting students "figure it out with sims" is almost certain to lead to poor results.
"
- Notable Gun Guy
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My repsonse:
"Would you have all martial people than pass on interactive sparring and just hit pads then? No, of course not. To advance, you recreate combat scenarios. Scenario training is training at the highest level. The key is to reduce the abstract. Range shooting is abstract.
Situational, interactive shooting lessons the abstract. Reduce the abstract. Make it as real as real can get.
You must do both. This the 15/45 minute split idea. After a person "qualifies with basics," then subsequently always do/review the live-fire, basics for 15 minutes and sims for 45 minutes. And no. You don’t just let them figure it out for themselves.
It has to be organized and supervised with a good after action review. The more real the bullet, the more real it seems to get. But, it takes a whole other level of instructor skills. It’s a way higher, more complicated level than paper target, range instruction.
Poor results in sims is the instructors fault for being inept, not the concept of sims shooting. Just like with kick-boxing.
I will use anything to pass on specific, critical, training point to students, even rubber band guns if I have too. It’s an interactive tool. And I have been doing so since 1995. At first, I was ridiculed for "playing with toys." But, attendees fight over the gun standing and on the ground and better understand lines of fire and reality. Now when I teach officers, I may sell up to 50 rubber band guns each session. The new breed "gets it." They get the idea. The idea is, "you are not really learning how to gunfight unless someone is shooting back at you."
Something we all already, deep down, know anyway.
And worse. Sparring is not much like a real street fight either! The basics for one might not fight the basics for another. The definition of sloppy and proper is very subjective to the goal or mission. As I have taught this simulated ammo training since 1995 and with thousands of new and vet students with everything from rubber band guns to the actual, painful Sims, I am really seeing a need to reverse-engineer the definition of "gun-shooting basics," in some cases. Making the basics better fit the situation from the very start. Reality is, or should be the starting point.
But this is like...another discussion a bit off the original subject.
- Hock