Competitive Match Skills Help You Survive?

Barbarians Live · Apr 21, 2016

Picked up latest Ballistic magazine today. There is an article "Can Match Skills Help You Survive?"

A "Round Table" of experts (as classified by the magazine) answered the question (followed by justification/explanation).

Massad Ayoob "Yes, for the better", William Bell "Yes", Shane Coley "Yes", Chris Edwards "Absolutely", Ken Hackathorn "Yes and No", Josh Jacckson "Yes, in a positive way", Frank Proctor (Go Army--I added that) "Yes", Bill Rogers "Yes", Gabe White "Yes", Bill Wilson "Yes, but . . ."

Wilson argued that NRA Bullseye and Bianchi Cup, Steel Challenge, and 3-Gun events do not qualify. He also argued that IDPA trumped IPSC/USPSA (". . . many of the skills needed to perform well at an IDPA match directly translate to the real world . . .").

The magazine should have pointed out that Wilson founded IDPA (and it is a private organization with non-voted-for leadership). It also should have pointed out Ken Hackathorn's connections to IDPA (and association with Wilson). Readers not familiar with the facts may possibly be influenced by perceptual bias. When I read "directly translate to the real world" my "BS" meter starts to engage (especially when singling out IDPA for that status). I think that Gabe White and Frank Proctor had some good points (but some of the other "experts" did as well). Rogers, White, and Procter are USPSA guys.

Does Bill Wilson have something against 3-Gun? I know that IDPA was created to differentiate itself from IPSC and that many IDPA shooters think it "translates to the real world." You, the jury, gets to decide!

Lots of gun porn in the mag as well.

jtischauser · Apr 21, 2016

Doesn't Wilson own IDPA? He sponsors several guys that shoot 3-gun.

Barbarians Live · Apr 21, 2016

I believe so. I don't want to sound acrimonious, but his reply tends to "promote" IDPA (which is why he should have made sure that his qualification list in the article included that omitted fact). I'm re-reading his reply to try and figure out exactly why he excludes 3-Gun.

Apparently because 3-Gun doesn't use "cover" or have more "tactical" situations/scenarios is why it is excluded. But he stresses safe gun handling, operating under pressure (time and match conditions), and other factors that apply equally to 3-Gun as IDPA.

wav3rhythm · Apr 21, 2016

I play the gun games as a sport and use air soft for my actual defensive training for the very reasons listed above. It has been much more realistic than paintball for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dennishoddy · Apr 21, 2016

Of course match skills help you survive.
How could they not? You learn to draw, come to the point of aim quickly, Clear malfunctions quickly, reload quickly, shooting under pressure, and other skills that 99.9% of the general gun owners knows exactly nothing about.
No brainer.

FortyMikeMike · Apr 22, 2016

I think the main benefit is being able to function better under pressure. Granted, a timed stage is just a fraction of the stress and pressure of a real engagement, but its a whole lot closer than punching holes at the range.

Barbarians Live · Apr 22, 2016

I agree with previous two posts. Thus, I cannot understand a logical reason why Wilson excludes 3-Gun and puts IDPA above IPSC and USPSA. Frank Proctor (Army Ranger) noted that he thought he was a better shooter than he was until he started shooting USPSA. He learned to increase his visual awareness (a good skill to have in survival situations). He is now a GM.

Wall · Apr 22, 2016

http://www.tactical-life.com/tactics/experts-competitive-shooting-defensive/#balsum16-experts-ayoob

drmitchgibson · Apr 22, 2016

It isn't possible for being great at shooting to not be beneficial.

jtischauser · Apr 23, 2016

Barbarians Live said:
I agree with previous two posts. Thus, I cannot understand a logical reason why Wilson excludes 3-Gun and puts IDPA above IPSC and USPSA. Frank Proctor (Army Ranger) noted that he thought he was a better shooter than he was until he started shooting USPSA. He learned to increase his visual awareness (a good skill to have in survival situations). He is now a GM.

IMHO Proctor is the most credible of the group because he can run a gun faster/better then 99% of folks. Lots of tactical timmys avoid the timer because it shows how poor their skills really are.

I too thought I was "a good shot" until I was handed my ass in a match. One of the biggest things nobody touched on was how shooting regular competitions fuels our desire to improve. For me the drive to be the best I can be and better then the next guys is what gets me out of bed everyday and out to the range to practice.

Barbarians Live · May 1, 2016

Agree with you about Proctor. Also admit that I thought I was a "good shot" until I started attending matches (especially USPSA). In my first USPSA match (38 shooters) I was 19th place overall (there were two masters, some As, etc. and open and limited as well) and 59.9% (just at the "B Class" baseline). That made me want to practice and learn more. I didn't fall into the mental game trap of ("I can shoot better than that . . ."). I came away thinking "****, I won't starting beating these guys until I start learning the skills necessary to compete with them." Working my way up the ladder the old fashioned way--paying my dues.