Last Tuesday, in an article titled "Isn't That Cheating?", I used the term "Tactical Ranger" to describe people who felt that the primary goal of shooting sports (which involve drawing pistol from the holster) should be "Tactical".
It occurs to me that this may seem to be a pejorative in the mind of some readers, and for that I do apologize. I have no quarrel with those who wish to hone their defensive skills ... I could use a more 'tactical' mindset myself, no doubt.
The fact remains, the tactics of IPSC-type competition are driven by competitive goals, not tactical goals. While it is absolutely possible to improve speed, accuracy and gun-handling skills through IPSC (here, USPSA), those who expect the experience to be an appropriate venue for developing a Tactical Mind-Set are doomed to disappointment.
In order to ameliorate my firearms faux pas, allow me to define what I mean by "Tactical Ranger".
First, what it does NOT mean:
The term "Tactical Ranger" does not mean those who choose to compete in Production, Single-Stack, Limited 10 or Limited Divisions in USPSA competition. Everybody chooses the division which best suits their personal preference, and the equipment they have. Sometimes this is the equipment they can afford, sometimes this is the equipment they consider to be most challenging, but almost invariably this means the equipment which is most appropriate to their personal skills set.
For example, I spent several years shooting a S&W 659 (9mm "Crunch&ticker", as Col. Cooper would call it) because I was willing to accept the points penalty on non-Azone hits for the perceived advantage of a higher magazine capacity, and because it capitalized upon my abilityto shoot accurately, though not very fast. This was my edge.
Later, I used a Kimber Custom (major power, fixed sights, single stack) for several years because I had learned how to shoot quickly and accurately, and reload adroitly. My greatest thrill was to beat competitors with hi-capacity magazines and "better equipment" because I didn't consider that a limited magazine capacity was a handicap, and the pistol was 100% reliable: where the high-price equipment was 'better', I could capitalize on their jams and other equipment failures to allow me an edge on at least one stage.
So I've done a few variations on equipment, and always found a reason to enjoy competing in that Division.
I've also seen people who, after completing a stage, take the time to (with the gun still mounted) look left, right and behind them. This is a basic precept of "Tactical" shooting. It is good training, and any defensive handgunner needs to develop this habit. It's not a handicap to competition, because this does not subtract stage points ... it doesn't add to stage time ... and besides it makes the rest of the squad look at you and say "Ooooooweee! This dude is tactical!"
What "Tactical Is".
A few years ago I was squadded with a "Tactical Ranger".
What are the characteristics?
I picked up on his priorities when I watched him. On every stage where he was required to get 'the best two hits' to score on paper targets, he took "two hits to the body, one to the head". That is, he engaged the lower A-zone twice, and then engaged the Upper A-zoned. He didn't always get his hits, but he got most of them. Usually, the only points penalty was when he hit the B-zone instead of the Upper A-zone.
But it usually cost him a significant Time penalty, which is not competitive.
After a couple of stages I decided: "Well, he has his priorities. It's not my place to correct him." I understood that he was being very safe -- it was his "Certification Match", which meant that he was required to complete the match safely, and USPSA requires that the New Shooter demonstrate his ability to shoot safely in match conditions. His gun-handling skills were just fine, and that was the important thing.
My epiphany came when he was called upon to engage 3 targets from behind the "Store Counter" stage prop.
Instead of drawing and shooting from standing position, he drew and then dropped to a supine position to engage the 3 targets.
No, not a "prone" position (lying on his belly). Instead, he was lying on his back facing downrange. This position required him to hold his pistol "upside down", and make whatever adjustments he deemed appropriate to get the hits needed to improve his score.
Worse, it was a "Timed Fire" exercise, and he was not required to engage the targets from 'below the counter".
He accepted the time penalties needed to assume this unusual position because he was determined to shoot every stage "Tactically", and he decided this was the best solution to his personal shooting problem. In fact, it took more time than was allocated to the shooting problem to assume his preferred position, but he didn't care. He did it his way, regardless of penalty points for exceeding the time allocated to complete the stage.
He shot this stage, and all stages in the match, safely. This is the minimum requirement of IPSC Certification. It mattered not at all that he didn't sometimes acquired a zero score on the stage.
I note also that, at this club, one is required to be "IPSC Certified" to use this close-quarters range.
The guy was eventually certified to be qualified to shoot on this range, and that was his only priority. He never appeared at another IPSC match, and I'm sure he was disappointed. He didn't want to shoot IPSC. He wanted to shoot "Tactical"; he did so, and in the process he acquired permission to use the range best suited to his purpose, which was practicing "Tactical" shooting techniques.
That, my friends, is a "Tactical Ranger".
He would have been welcome at any Practical Pistol Match, although he would probably not have scored 'high' because his practice did not emphasize "Practical" techniques as well as they emphasized "Tactical" techniques.
Need I add that this gentleman never again competed in another IPSC match?
He achieved his goals, and was indifferent to "Practical Pistol" competition.
I have no problem with this.
I only offer it as an illustrative example.
No comments:
Post a Comment