Feedback on ‘The Great Tactical Training Con’ Post
“Hey, thanks for the article. I don’t disagree with you. Looking that the blog post of mine that you have linked to, I believe that the driving factor behind the students comments and my commentary is that people are led to believe that they are ‘combat ready’ after a ‘tactical training’ course on square ranges. That’s really what I am getting at.
If you would, take a look at my post about Shooting Fundamentals.
What I am pointing out here is the tactical training is a continuum that does not stop at the square range. My courses are designed for those who are competent on square ranges and need to transition to field firing, otherwise known as real tactical training.
My ranges are set up in terrain that allows multi-directional shooting, flanking movements, use of ground etc. So it is set up, with pop up targets and even bunkers, to move beyond the square range.
One interesting thing is that because my ranges are set up in the woods in specific terrain, they could be considered CQB ranges because engagement distances do not exceed 100 meters and often more around 25 meters. Or short range marksmanship as you describe it.
That is another topic – CQB to me is as you described, short range marksmanship, with a subset of CQB dedicated to structure entry and clearance. That’s another battle to be fought with those who are so tunnel vision on structure entry they cannot see that CQB occurs outside of buildings as well. Another post, I think…. (i.e struture entry/clearance as a subset of CQB as a greater whole).
My shooting fundamentals post entirely agrees with you that the foundation of all this is good marksmanship training. Not CQB training. Then, to be fully competent, you have to move beyond square range drills (of course I still do the basics in my training site also) to practice in realistic tactical environments. My aim is to bring that, bring the battlefield to my training site.”
Here is a link to a previous post about CQB: Kicking off a little CQB Controversy
The shooting fundamentals post is important because it stresses good basics and the progression from square ranges to transition to field firing.
My issue is with giving anyone the impression that square ranges are sufficient to give people tactical training, rather than necessary as part of the progression to field firing ranges.
Live Hard, Die Free.