pardon my double posts batman but i didn’t click on the video before i posted the last comment. i thought it was a still shot and didn’t think they were actually firing the guns. all i can say is… well nothing really, it’s just unbelievable. not only is the photographer and idiot, the shooters are idiots as well as the range officer who must have been freebasing crack during this. is he too cheap to get a remote for the camera, set up the shot with guns holstered then move out of the line of stupidity and “click”? these people shouldn’t be permitted to carry a gun. wow this is just unbelievable any range would permit this if no other reason than a potential insurance nightmare.
There is a bunch of posts defending this on the website. I think it is a totally unnecessary risk for 99% of shooters, BUT I’d be a liar if I told you I didn’t end up doing the exact same thing at a DOD school – five rounds from 3m while the instructor was standing next to the target. The idea was that gunfights are not static and we don’t get to set the pieces beforehand. In CQB or police encounters where things are fluid and there are many moving pieces, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing to teach. I think the safer (albeit less effective) method is to have shoot / no-shoot and penalize heavily with negative reinforcement, or conduct this type of training with Airsoft / Simunitions to reinforce the relevant concepts.
PS – I’d love to see what their insurance company has to say about this video.
MHCPD — I’ve done drills where there were shooters downrange or even next to targets, too. That is completely different. Anyone claiming this was done for training value is fooling either his audience or himself. If it was done for training, the photographer would not have been squatting between just two students’ targets. What was the value for the other students?
Furthermore, there is a huge leap from what drills make sense in a team CQB training cycle that is likely to be weeks if not months long, and what makes sense for a bunch of folks at a weekend pistol class. Look at the guy in the blue t-shirt on the photog’s left. He is clearly struggling to shoot well and needs coaching on how to clear a simple stoppage. That is not someone who needs to be shooting with a living breathing mistake-about-to-happen a foot or two away from his target.
There will always be people who fall for the chest-thumping “I can say warrior louder than you!” lure.
HMMMMMMM…. Wasn’t there a post on this site a few weeks ago about an “instructor” who blew his brains out while demonstrating to his students what not to do???? I think this is his family reunion.
Shame. This takes “stupid ass” to an exciting new level.
I agree completely. I simply had to state that this can be done as a training tool under limited, select circumstances – and this obviously does not qualify.
Personally, that cameraman should think this is the shot of a lifetime – because without knowing the shooters, it just might be…
Troup76 — Yes, it was definitely Tactical Response. The photographer/instructor has posted on DefensiveCarry.com about it, and there is a very long thread on TR’s private discussion board. But let’s keep this discussion on topic about what was done, not who did it.
MHCPD — Exactly. Is there a place for training in which someone may be downrange of the shooter? Absolutely. Was that the place? No.
having participated in Tac Res courses, I’ve seen this thing a number of times. To be fair, the photographer usually does do this to everyone, or at least everyone he feels comfortable doing it with. Is it smart? is it safe? is it necessary? Like others have stated, in select circumstances yes, in this case? I’d have to say no.
Even as a basic guy (read, joe blow civilian) I’ve been to several coursers of instruction where the instructor felt comfortable enough give a taste of a 360degree range with his students. There are drills that we did that involved people down range, shooting inbetween others that were moving, and so on.
BUT, to simply sit down there and take pictures for the sake of taking pictures, and then to turn around and let a video LEAK it to the ErrorNet.
I saw this video when it first “hit the fan” and renew my objection to any live fire training that includes humans ahead of the muzzle. This is what SIMS/force on force training should do for us.
If you need to “hear” the sounds of bullets whizzing by, pull butts on a .mil rifle range.
The mass acceptance of the photographer downrange by those taking the course is the key problem to mixing “blind” following with live fire exercises. Justifications like “a stellar safety record” and “no student objected” are logical fallacies (actual email responses to those questioning the practice).
To justify a range practice because there has never been a problem with the practice is short sighted. I can justify not wearing a seat belt because I have never been in an accident right up until the time that I am forcefully exiting the car through the windshield. Then it’s game over just as it will be when someone catches a bullet “during a class”.
Hopefully this video will mark the last time this (or any) group puts anyone ahead of live fire in a training course.
“Does anyone know why Tactical Response teaches to do the 360 scan with muzzle up rather than position sol?”
I’ve never trained with TR, so take this as the second hand info that it is, having had it explained to me by guys who have trained there. The reason to point it up is that there’s less chance of flagging anything with a muzzle. There’s other shooters, feet, marmosets, and protected dirt on the ground. It’s a calculated risk, I suppose, but I’d rather have somebody launch one straight up than into my foot because they were checking their six and not watching their muzzle. That said, the guys I shoot with (considerably better and more experienced shooters than the average) don’t flag anybody when their eyes are looking somewhere other than the direction of the muzzle. It’s a way. I’m not down with it, but it’s a way.
I have trained with Tactical Response. Another reason for the muzzle up scan, is to keep the training consistent. The muzzle is up, and the gun in front of the face, during reloads and malfunction clearances to enable the shooter to keep his eyes on the target but also be able to see the gun to expedite loading and clearing the mafunction. The rifles are treated the same way. It all leads to consistency.
Like Haji said, it’s a way, not the way, to do it.
Is this the new police training on how to deal with the bias media?
*facepalm*
wow…
Welcome to Tactical Response training.
Looks like target 2 needs to be refaced.
it’s too obvious to the trained, skilled and highly proficient eyeball such as the one in my left eye socket… his lens cap is still on.
pardon my double posts batman but i didn’t click on the video before i posted the last comment. i thought it was a still shot and didn’t think they were actually firing the guns. all i can say is… well nothing really, it’s just unbelievable. not only is the photographer and idiot, the shooters are idiots as well as the range officer who must have been freebasing crack during this. is he too cheap to get a remote for the camera, set up the shot with guns holstered then move out of the line of stupidity and “click”? these people shouldn’t be permitted to carry a gun. wow this is just unbelievable any range would permit this if no other reason than a potential insurance nightmare.
Looks like target 2 needs to be refaced.
Or he’s about to, anyway …
There is a bunch of posts defending this on the website. I think it is a totally unnecessary risk for 99% of shooters, BUT I’d be a liar if I told you I didn’t end up doing the exact same thing at a DOD school – five rounds from 3m while the instructor was standing next to the target. The idea was that gunfights are not static and we don’t get to set the pieces beforehand. In CQB or police encounters where things are fluid and there are many moving pieces, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing to teach. I think the safer (albeit less effective) method is to have shoot / no-shoot and penalize heavily with negative reinforcement, or conduct this type of training with Airsoft / Simunitions to reinforce the relevant concepts.
PS – I’d love to see what their insurance company has to say about this video.
MHCPD — I’ve done drills where there were shooters downrange or even next to targets, too. That is completely different. Anyone claiming this was done for training value is fooling either his audience or himself. If it was done for training, the photographer would not have been squatting between just two students’ targets. What was the value for the other students?
Furthermore, there is a huge leap from what drills make sense in a team CQB training cycle that is likely to be weeks if not months long, and what makes sense for a bunch of folks at a weekend pistol class. Look at the guy in the blue t-shirt on the photog’s left. He is clearly struggling to shoot well and needs coaching on how to clear a simple stoppage. That is not someone who needs to be shooting with a living breathing mistake-about-to-happen a foot or two away from his target.
There will always be people who fall for the chest-thumping “I can say warrior louder than you!” lure.
One of the comments from the video site:
“I’ll be watching for the follow up video, “It’s okay to pet the lions” “
HMMMMMMM…. Wasn’t there a post on this site a few weeks ago about an “instructor” who blew his brains out while demonstrating to his students what not to do???? I think this is his family reunion.
Shame. This takes “stupid ass” to an exciting new level.
Forgive me if I missed it, but is it confirmed that this from a Tactical Response class?
Todd,
I agree completely. I simply had to state that this can be done as a training tool under limited, select circumstances – and this obviously does not qualify.
Personally, that cameraman should think this is the shot of a lifetime – because without knowing the shooters, it just might be…
Troup76 — Yes, it was definitely Tactical Response. The photographer/instructor has posted on DefensiveCarry.com about it, and there is a very long thread on TR’s private discussion board. But let’s keep this discussion on topic about what was done, not who did it.
MHCPD — Exactly. Is there a place for training in which someone may be downrange of the shooter? Absolutely. Was that the place? No.
having participated in Tac Res courses, I’ve seen this thing a number of times. To be fair, the photographer usually does do this to everyone, or at least everyone he feels comfortable doing it with. Is it smart? is it safe? is it necessary? Like others have stated, in select circumstances yes, in this case? I’d have to say no.
Even as a basic guy (read, joe blow civilian) I’ve been to several coursers of instruction where the instructor felt comfortable enough give a taste of a 360degree range with his students. There are drills that we did that involved people down range, shooting inbetween others that were moving, and so on.
BUT, to simply sit down there and take pictures for the sake of taking pictures, and then to turn around and let a video LEAK it to the ErrorNet.
Damn, thats double stupid.
I saw this video when it first “hit the fan” and renew my objection to any live fire training that includes humans ahead of the muzzle. This is what SIMS/force on force training should do for us.
If you need to “hear” the sounds of bullets whizzing by, pull butts on a .mil rifle range.
The mass acceptance of the photographer downrange by those taking the course is the key problem to mixing “blind” following with live fire exercises. Justifications like “a stellar safety record” and “no student objected” are logical fallacies (actual email responses to those questioning the practice).
To justify a range practice because there has never been a problem with the practice is short sighted. I can justify not wearing a seat belt because I have never been in an accident right up until the time that I am forcefully exiting the car through the windshield. Then it’s game over just as it will be when someone catches a bullet “during a class”.
Hopefully this video will mark the last time this (or any) group puts anyone ahead of live fire in a training course.
Jason
Video appears to have been pulled. Does anyone know why Tactical Response teaches to do the 360 scan with muzzle up rather than position sol?
Video is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0ueR-AEw4.
Video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0ueR-AEw4.
Darrel F.
Go ask at GetOffTheX.com. They’ll tell you why.
“Does anyone know why Tactical Response teaches to do the 360 scan with muzzle up rather than position sol?”
I’ve never trained with TR, so take this as the second hand info that it is, having had it explained to me by guys who have trained there. The reason to point it up is that there’s less chance of flagging anything with a muzzle. There’s other shooters, feet, marmosets, and protected dirt on the ground. It’s a calculated risk, I suppose, but I’d rather have somebody launch one straight up than into my foot because they were checking their six and not watching their muzzle. That said, the guys I shoot with (considerably better and more experienced shooters than the average) don’t flag anybody when their eyes are looking somewhere other than the direction of the muzzle. It’s a way. I’m not down with it, but it’s a way.
Thanks,
To add on to Haji’s post…
I have trained with Tactical Response. Another reason for the muzzle up scan, is to keep the training consistent. The muzzle is up, and the gun in front of the face, during reloads and malfunction clearances to enable the shooter to keep his eyes on the target but also be able to see the gun to expedite loading and clearing the mafunction. The rifles are treated the same way. It all leads to consistency.
Like Haji said, it’s a way, not the way, to do it.
I use muzzle up mostly. That has a lot to do with everyone in my house that I’m worried about getting shot is at my waist and below.