Competitive Shooting is not Combat; Combat is not Self-Defense Shooting

Practical Self-Defense??  Really??

Prologue: As I was writing this, I kept using certain terms that I feel I need to define up front.  In the military we use the acronym TTP, that stands for Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.  We use the acronym and all three of those concepts blend together, even though they are separate and distinct:

Techniques: Individual skills that are the building block of the other two.  For example in pistol shooting, how to draw the handgun from the holster.  It's the same way every time, and practicing it builds reliable muscle-memory.

Tactics: Unit maneuvers with many factors including force structure, terrain and weather, enemy capabilities, et cetera...requires creativity and judgment. For example, entering and clearing a building; every building is slightly different with rooms and walls, so you must make quick tactical decisions.

Procedures: Hard written rules for accomplishing specific types of objectives, not subject to creativity and judgment. Firearms safety rules: always keep  the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, for example.

Having established that, let us begin:

The shooting industry has started to recognize a distinction between shooting sports and combat in the last few years.  "Practical" shooting sports are, like all athletic pursuits, driven by outstanding performers.  The best competition shooters in the world, however, do things to make them faster that are not tactically sound in combat situations.  The best of them will admit that; guys like Rob Leatham and Taran Butler acknowledge that to be the best in their sport, they have to focus on the skills that allow them to shoot fast and accurately enough to get points.  This means standing tall, head up, bringing the gun up to eye level, lightened triggers, lightened guns, et cetera...  Many of these things are not tactically sound.  Some are partially sound, depending on the equipment somebody is carrying in combat.  For instance, using the isosceles shooting stance is a classic argument among athletes putting holes in cardboard targets that do not shoot back.  Without a doubt, it is faster to shoot multiple target scenarios from the isosceles stance; and if you are wearing body armor with chest plates, it is also the tactically smart thing to do.  But, if you are not wearing body armor, "blading" your body away from full presentation of your vital organs to an enemy shooter is the more tactically sound method; this is why it was taught to soldiers and cops from World War Two through Vietnam and into the 1980s.  It's better to get shot in the shoulder than in the center of the chest.  So, that's one example of many shooting techniques that may or may not be a good tactic depending on the setting and the equipment.  

For SWAT cops, wearing plate carriers and Kevlar helmets, that technique would also be a good tactic, but for plain-clothed detectives wearing suits and ties, with no body armor, it would not be as tactically sound.

I say all of that by way of introduction, because the shooting "world," the industry and enthusiasts/athletes, mostly accept the logic that there is a difference between competitive shooting and actual combat.  In the same way, self-defense shooting is different from either of them also.  Combat is all about advantages.  Finding the higher ground, the more defensible position, the best tactics for the size of the unit, the right mixture of forces including tanks and infantry and artillery and battleships...  Furthermore, smart combat is about Initiative, setting the time and place of battle.  A self-defense shooting engagement is none of those things.  By the nature of violent crime, self-defenders are always at an "Initiative Deficit," meaning they are ambushed.  Fighting out of that ambush is where many of the techniques of competitive shooters can be useful: fast draw, shooting from compromised positions, et cetera.  Self-defense pistol shooting, by contrast, is more akin to hand-to-hand combat then full-scale combat.  Just like in hand-to-hand combat, it is the techniques that are important, as any tactical considerations are moot, because really the best tactic for self-defense considerations is to avoid the situation entirely, or escape a violent encounter before it starts.  Those are good self-defense tactics, though not techniques.

This is why I talk about the martial art of shooting, because self-defense pistol engagements are much more like a fist fight than a tactical military defense.  Most happen within six feet, many happen much closer than that, within arms length.  Which means that many of the aspects of training that go into competitive shooting are unimportant in a self-defense engagement.  Within arms length, there is no reason to aim a handgun.  In grappling range (a martial arts idea), it's very dangerous to use sights as the gun can be taken away, it will be deflected from the natural point of aim that competition shooting emphasizes, or the fundamentals of marksmanship that combat training emphasizes.  In the Army, soldiers qualify shooting at man-shaped and sized targets out to three-hundred meters in basic training.  Even military pistol ranges are shooting out to 35 meters.  No self-defense shooting situation happens at those ranges.  Active shooter situations are not the same as self-defense shootings; those are acts of terrorism, which is a type of combat scenario, and the lone pistol-armed defender against an active shooter has a very low-probability of success, which is why I don't teach Active Shooter Response.  That is a tactical scenario, which requires either more people (security teams) or more equipment (rifles) than an armed citizen with a concealed-carry 9mm handgun can reliably provide.  Not saying it's impossible, but the odds are strongly in favor of the active shooter, especially if armed with a rifle.  

But I digress, the point I'm making is that self-defense shooting is much more akin to fist fighting than combat scenarios, and while some techniques from the competition world can be useful, some are not at all useful.  Another picture worth a thousand words:

Now this is a more accurate vision of a self-defense shooting situation.  It's very chaotic, not based on good fundamentals of marksmanship as taught for combat, nor speed-accuracy balance as preached in competition.  The self-defender is falling down--knocked down by the skateboard--draws the gun, shoots the man on the left who had tried to stab him, all in about two seconds, while grappling and in a fist fight.  That's self-defense shooting.  It's not tactically elegant.  Nor is it sexy like watching a world-champion competition shooter blaze through a course of fire.  It is really the martial art of shooting, just like stick fighting or knife fighting or fighting with a katana, a pistol is just a different tool that (slightly) extends your body, but you're still in a hand-to-hand combat distance and range most of the time.

Therefore, what should you be practicing?  Is competition shooting making you better at self-defense?  Probably it is, if you are focused on the consistency of some techniques and the speed with which you can put accurate strings of fire into aggressors, but understand a lot of what makes competitors great is not very smart when people are shooting back at you.  I wrote a column recently about the "tactical lean" and why it's not very good for sport shooting, but if you look at this picture again, he got knocked down because he was not in a good fighting stance.  A good fighting stance is good irrespective of the tool you are using to fight the engagement.  Now, that makes me a slower shooter, but it means when somebody swings a skateboard at me, I have things I can do to that person with or without a handgun.  In my principles of self-defense, I preach that I am the Weapon, and the gun is just a tool, just like a knife or an automobile can be tools of self-defense.  That's why my technique for shooting is a fighting stance, leaning forward on the balls of my feet, aggressive, on balance, and able to move my feet for targeting instead of just my arms.  I would lose in shooting competitions using this method, however, in a handgun fight, most competitive shooters would lose to my techniques.

There are many of these differences between combat, competition and self-defense shooting.  In this column, I focused on stance, one of the shooting fundamentals taught in all three disciplines, but with different motives for emphasizing different techniques.  In my classes, I try to bring up these distinctions and always come back to the idea that self-defense with a pistol is exactly the same as self-defense with your bare hands or a knife, the only difference is the targeting.  So as you go about practicing and training to defend yourself with a handgun, take from the competition side and the combat (tactical) side, but always think about whether their techniques make sense in a sub-six-foot encounter against a guy with a knife or a skateboard.  Some of them will, some of them won't, but view them all through the lens of a fist fight and you will be preparing yourself better for actually employing a handgun in a self-defense shooting.

Please like and share with other shooters and self-defenders.  I'm always open to feedback, especially if you totally disagree with me.  I don't take it too seriously, it's just shooting people!

Thanks,

Soule

Easy 6

www.easy6training.com