Soldiers' reactions to action shooting

dHb

Regular
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Eastern Ontario
I spent last week at the Canadian Forces Small Arm Competition putting shooters through an orientation session and practice matches for the combat pistol competition. The match format is very IDPAish. For most of them it was the first time they've shot anything like this with service pistols. Needless to say, they had a blast. I got a kick out of seeing the huge rush they had at the end of each fieldcourse - quite the adrenaline surge!

From the conversations afterwards it looks like there will be more military folks gearing up to try ISPC, IDPA/CDP in the near future.
:)
 
Good for the CFSAC guys but no infantiers get to do any shooting at allexcept the few chosen at random to attend the competition. I had a few buddies on the team. They were chosen because they were not on any of the taskings going on at the time.
I would have loved to have been on CFSAC but was on the parade for the 125th anniversary for 1RCR.
 
The only by the book pistol shooting is the Personal Weapons Test (PWT). Having a chance to do anything remotely exciting is a big deal. My unit ran its annual 9mm qual' (I had 37/37 in the big ring on the Fig 11) which was not a great shoot for me, but better than everyone else. Afterwards, some of the guys wanted to burn off the remaining 9mm (Winchester 147gr HP in white civilian packaging, with a NATO stock number on the outer box!). Some one with more rank than me made up a left to right sequenced shoot with double taps and a mag change. I had fun but it was no IPSC freestyle course.
 
It seems odd to me that the CF pistol champion is a humble guy in the Air Force that claims to have only shot a few times during his duties. One might consider that IPSC style training has it's benefits. Why is it that CF personal can not shoot their duty pistols at provincially approved ranges? It seems to me that contrary to the US shooting team that travels to and from IPSC style matches regularly, the CF bosses will not accept that their training methods are inferior, or they are really not interested in promoting shooting competence.
My opinions sometimes dictate my self employment.
Ron.
 
it is the same with some other Federal organizations and firearms training,...they are many years behind on the learning curve. Time limits,...use of cover is not strictly adhered to. It is more of marksmanship test,...usually only one distance at a time....30-40rds for the whole course of fire,..and that is it. They are not flexible to advancements in training. IT is sad. At my work,.the guys at least have an annual training workshop,..which consists of a few small stages and a medium field course. I use my pistol with 10rd mags,...and the results are not even close. We have DFO/DNR,.RCMP,.etc...show up as well. Those guys that show up are the guys I would say can become the most proficient.
 
Good for the CFSAC guys but no infantiers get to do any shooting at allexcept the few chosen at random to attend the competition. I had a few buddies on the team. They were chosen because they were not on any of the taskings going on at the time.
I would have loved to have been on CFSAC but was on the parade for the 125th anniversary for 1RCR.

No infanteers got to do any shooting? 90% of the 2CMBG team was infantry! You're right though that it was pretty much guys who weren't tasked otherwise. Myself, I had to sneak around and join the team halfway through training in a bit of a back door deal.

Didn't shoot pistol, but it certainly looked like good training and I know that the guys had a blast, even if they did get destroyed by the other teams.

I wouldn't mind getting into some IDPA or IPSC myself, just gotta buy a pistol and some mags, only have rifles and shotguns at the moment.
 
The forces have indoor ranges and shooting clubs for those that wanted to learn how to shoot, but even there they shot in a very strict format where safety was everything and shooting on the move would not be allowed.

Add in limited time and limited ammo supplies, not to mention the military can make any operation a time consuming monster, plus action pistol has only been around in a major way since around the 80's and is still gaining acceptance. Still what reports I have seen shows the training is still way better than it used to be.
 
What the army does is right for the army

Evry now and then a topic comes up that just makes you want to express an opinion. So heres mine for those feel that police and military trg is out to lunch. As a retired soldier and as a dedicated competitive shooter i just wanted to say that many of us are too quick to judge firearms training models of the Military or Police or MNR or any other government agencies.
What the Army does is what works for the army. CFSAC style matches and PWT are foundation skill tests. They are proven best ways to veiw and review and evaluate when you have to deal with large numbers and wide ranging skill levels no matter what orginization you work for.
To say that police and federal gov,t agencies like the military are slow on the learning curve with firearms training is a woefully misguided perception.

Civilian driven matches like IPSC, IDPA USPSA etc.. are valuable trg for anyone with a desire to be personally competent with a firearm. But this is only a small piece of a really big pie for those who carry a firearm proffesionally in the performance of thier duty.
Force on Force trg, Combat team functions, tactical support use, are all part of picture that you will not see at the local gun club.
How many guys are screaming down the road on your range doing live fire from an armoured vehicle while mortar support is coming in on a bank of IPSC targets.Or how many times do you force someone to stay awake for 18 hours while sitting in a cruiser watching a radar gun before coming the firing line and hoping to be at peak performance.

All opportunities to develop your gun skills have value. Even shooting olympic pistol matches will help. (admittedly its like watching paint dry)
Too many of the competitors I have worked or train with develop the belief that the recreational sport they are engaging is the real representation of the Sht Hit the Fan Scenario and that nobody else is doing it right. It is a divisionary mentallity that will only erode the existence of many shooting sports.
Keep an open mind to what and why everyone is doing something a little different than you are. You may learn something, even if it's what not to do.
After all if it was real, the targets would be shooting back, and that changes everything.

Just my two cents worth
 
Early on in the mission, I heard from a number of guys fresh back from Afghanistan and the opinions a lot of them that the weapons training in the CF is way behind the curve, a lot of the training that has been taught for years was dangerous and in fact getting more troops killed or wounded than it was saving.

In the late 90's - early 2000's (and probably even to this day, I'm not sure) we were taught when doing section attacks that any exposure of your body would result in you "being dead." So on Basic, when we had fire teams manning C9's, the section commander would come by, smack you on the helmet, say "you're dead" if you had your ass up an inch too high.

This model made sense with the Cold War model of battling Soviet hordes in the planes of Europe, but fast forward to Afghanistan, where FIBUA is the name of the game. Outside the wire, you have troops in CQB, kicking down doors and doing dynamic entries. The same troops taught "to be dead" are put into situations where they are deliberately exposing themselves to enemy fire. They take a hit to a peripheral or in the body armor and their training of "I'm dead" kicks in - and they freeze like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming car. Suddenly, your chaulk is down one troop and the insurgent with an AK is able to put down an extra 5-10 rounds.

Towards the end of my career, more emphasis was being put on violence of action and "you're not dead until you're dead." And when we did CQB, we were trained to keep fighting, even if we had sustained a hit from enemy fire unless you take a hit to the head - you still would have 5-10 minutes of bleed out time before you were rendered ineffective (or dead), and in that time you still can operate your weapon or be a weapon yourself and until all opposition was neutralized, you don't come into a relaxed or complacent state.

As for the original post, I did one competition with the military (before they changed the regs to dissallow it) that was pseudo IDPA style. That was enough to turn me into a gun owner.

I never took gunfighter, so I don't know what the training is like - but I will say after being out from the military, I've come to realize that the military does put more emphasis on safety than on practical application, but when you think about it, that makes sense. Soldiers, for the most part, are just people off the street put into a uniform and given specialized training. Not very many civilians come in with any sort of firearms experience (I sure didn't) - and you have to be extra safe with them, otherwise you'd see a lot more troops killed in training than on deployments.

As for the original post, I did one competition with the military that was more like a multi-gun IDPA competition, and it was enough to turn me into a gun owner :)
 
Last edited:
Harbl, how many of our guys are actually getting killed in "combat" aren't 90%+ of our casualties due to IED etc. (disregarding friendly fire)...

That's because we're winning the war (contrary to what any Liberal or Taliban Jack will have you think).

You're right - most of our casualties now are from the losing strategy of IED's and suicide bombs, but the fact remains that the Liberals sent Canadians soldiers into a modern 3D war trained for a Cold War style conflict. The Army adapted, but only after learning some hard lessons early on about how our old training model wasn't giving troops in combat roles the tools they needed to fight in that environment. It's something of a tribute to the troops themselves, since they still adapted and were able to kick the Taliban's asses in straight up conventional warfare.

That's not to say military training is inadequate or ineffective; it is to say that our old style of training soldiers to fight an enemy 100-300m away was outdated for the conflicts we've been involved with for 20 years and will continue to be involved with in the coming century.

There was encouraging reform by the time I left, but I would say the practical shooting I do privately is more well suited. I doubt the military could afford to spend the amount of time and resources needed to build every soldier up to that level of proficiency nor that they would even need to.

When you think that only a very small portion of the army (just the army) will ever see combat, there isn't really much of a need for the entire army to be capable of doing CQB (though I'm pretty sure the Combat Arms receives that training).

The old PWT's were enough to train a soldier to be safe with their weapons and I think that should take precedence (can you imagine what a gong show it would be if soldiers were regularly killed on training exercises in Canada?).
 
Last edited:
i am not getting into the training debate , but i do wish there would be more support of the sport, I have yet to hear of any modern PSP support for the sport for example am i wrong? if so let me know .

I think if if there was as much support for all types of competitive shooting as thier was for hockey we would be better off as a whole

It took me 14 years for the opportunity to be a member of an actual team that practices two or three times a week. I feel people should have the opportunity rather than luck out.

I also agree that any shooting association event such as Ipsc IDPA or ppc should be supported, I don't understand why it has to be so complicated to travel to a civ range and participate. I am not saying you should have a golden ticket esp when non-service firearms and ammo are used but at least some support.
 
i am not getting into the training debate , but i do wish there would be more support of the sport, I have yet to hear of any modern PSP support for the sport for example am i wrong? if so let me know.

In 2005 PSP supported my trip to the IPSC Nationals. It was a hard sell and it mostly succeeded because CFSAC wasn't running. I have heard of a couple of others with similar success but have not confirmed it.


I think if if there was as much support for all types of competitive shooting as thier was for hockey we would be better off as a whole

I am a recreational hockey player (code for I suck) but I agree 100% and we should probably add golf to the list as well.


Words Twice
 
Back
Top Bottom