Tras publicar el artículo Clasificación del tiro con armas de fuego: tiro táctico y tiro deportivo les escribimos un correo electrónico tanto a Pat Rogers como a Tiger McKee, adjuntándoles la traducción al inglés (puedes leerla al final) de la parte del artículo comprendida entre los párrafos siguientes, de forma que como expertos pudieran darnos su opinión al respecto:
Tiro policial, tiro reactivo, tiro defensivo, tiro de combate, tiro deportivo, tiro de instrucción, tiro táctico, etc…., ¿realmente existen tantas clases de tiro con armas de fuego? En mi opinión, ni existen tantas clases de tiro, ni se puede establecer una clasificación atendiendo a condiciones o cualidades del tiro que no permiten diferenciar claramente más de una clase de tiro, ni resulta práctico establecer clasificaciones que en lugar de aportar algún beneficio solo distorsionan y confunden.
[…]
Por ejemplo, en el caso de posiciones/posturas de tiro, en tiro deportivo la posición de tendido exige no apoyar el cargador en el suelo, sin embargo, en tiro táctico resulta recomendable hacerlo así si ello supone un beneficio para el tirador, ya que al enfrentarse a una situación táctica no habrá un árbitro que supervise tal cosa.
Tiger McKee nos respondió lo siguiente, que se reproduce a continuación primero en inglés y acto seguido traducido al español:
When it comes to firearms there are three types of applications: for hunting food, for use in shooting sports, and fighting against a threat. In his article, «Classification of firearms shooting: tactical shooting and sport shooting,» Jorge Tierno Rey points out that the techniques for fighting with a firearm are the same regardless of who you are. I also agree that it is a mistake to create a multitude of categories according to who is shooting the firearm. The techniques for shooting accurately, manipulating the weapon to reload or clear malfunctions, and properly use cover, all while moving and possibly facing multiple threats in a low-light environment are the same for everyone. We teach home-owners who have weapons for self defense, law enforcement officers, military and armed professionals all the same techniques, which are the fundamental skills required to fight with the weapon. No matter who you are, when in a fight working to defeat your threat the fundamentals being applied all the same.
The difference is in the tactics required, or what order the fundamentals are applied. A home-owner is best to avoid and retreat from potential trouble. The armed professional may be required to address, advance and defeat the threat. But the skills are the same. We shouldn’t define shooting skills based who is using the weapon, but instead focus on the tactics as dictated by who we are and the intended use of the firearm.
Tiger McKee, Shootrite Firearms Academy, www.shootrite.org
«Cuando se habla de armas de fuego existen tres tipos de aplicaciones: caza, tiro deportivo y combate contra una amenaza. En su artículo “Clasificación del tiro con armas de fuego: tiro táctico y tiro deportivo” Jorge Tierno Rey señala que las técnicas para combatir con un arma de fuego son las mismas independientemente de quién seas. Yo también estoy de acuerdo en que es un error crear una multitud de categorías en función de quién dispare el arma. Las técnicas para disparar con precisión, manipular el arma durante las recargas y la resolución de interrupciones y el empleo correcto de una cubierta/parapeto, todo ello mientras nos movemos y posiblemente nos enfrentamos a múltiples amenazas en un entorno de poca luz, son las mismas para todos. Nosotros enseñamos tanto a ciudadanos que tienen armas para defenderse como a policías, militares y otros profesionales armados las mismas técnicas, las cuales constituyen las técnicas básicas necesarias para combatir con un arma.
Cuando te encuentres en un combate luchando para vencer a tu amenaza no importa quién seas, los principios básicos a aplicar son los mismos. La diferencia radica en la táctica necesaria o en el orden de aplicación de los principios básicos. En el caso de un ciudadano es preferible que evite y retroceda frente a un problema potencial. Sin embargo, el profesional armado puede que sea requerido para abordar, avanzar y derrotar la amenaza. Pero las técnicas son las mismas. No deberíamos definir técnicas de tiro basándonos en quién usa el arma, sino centrarnos en la táctica a emplear según quién seamos y el uso que pretendamos darle al arma de fuego.
Tiger McKee, Shootrite Firearms Academy, www.shootrite.org»
Tiger McKee es el director de la escuela de tiro con armas de fuego Shootrite Firearms Academy (www.shootrite.org), situada al norte del estado de Alabama, en EE.UU. Además es el autor del libro The Book of Two Guns, que dispone de una edición electrónica en español con el título El Libro de Dos Armas, y forma parte del equipo de autores en varias publicaciones tácticas y sobre armas de fuego. Asimismo, fue instructor adjunto para el FBI y el diseñador del fusil de asalto “Katana”, fabricado por Red Jacket Firearms.
Por otra parte, el difunto Pat Rogers nos autorizó a citar sus palabras, que reproduzco a continuación primero en inglés y a continuación traducidas al español:
Brother!
That is an excellent article.
Your translation looks GTG [Good To Go], and I agree with your concepts.
[…]
Thank you so much for sending this!
S/F
Pat sends
«¡Hermano!
Es un artículo excelente.
Tu traducción parece buena y estoy de acuerdo con tus conceptos.
[…]
¡Muchísimas gracias por enviármelo!
S/F [Semper Fidelis]
Pat lo envia»
Pat Rogers (DEP) fue Chief Warrant Officer en el Cuerpo de Infantería de Marina estadounidense y Sargento en la Policía Local de Nueva York. Pat era el propietario de E.A.G. Tactical Inc. (www.eagtactical.com), entidad a través de la que proporcionaba servicios de formación en combate con armas de fuego tanto a organismos gubernamentales como a ciudadanos privados. Pat fue un mentor para muchos, incluso virtualmente como en mi caso. El vacío que dejó tras su muerte como referente en el mundo de la formación del combate con armas de fuego es difícilmente cubierto por ningún otro, porque ¡Pat no hay más que uno! ¡Descanse en Paz!
Classification of firearms shooting: tactical shooting and sport shooting.
By Jorge Tierno Rey, Spanish Marine.
20th April 2011
Police shooting, reactive shooting, defensive shooting, combat shooting, sport shooting, training shooting, tactical shooting, etc., does it really exist so many firearms shooting categories?
In my opinion, so many shooting categories don’t exist. Besides, a classification shouldn’t be established according to some features or aspects of shooting which don’t allow to set clearly more than one category. It becomes unpractical to establish any classification which just distort and confuse, rather than providing any benefit.
For example, if a firearms shooting classification is established according to the professional field of firearms employment, one of the shooting categories would be police shooting, which is so much talked about nowadays, but then it should also be set so many other shooting categories as professional fields of firearms employment: military shooting, executive protection shooting, security guard shooting, civy shooting, sport shooting, perp shooting, etc. Otherwise, if no other categories apart from police shooting are set up, such a classification would lack of sense. Moreover, to set up a classification is needed to have two or more categories different between them. So that, in this case police shooting has to be different from military shooting, which makes sense being the classification criteria the professional field of firearms employment, i.e. police shooting is defined as firearms employment by a LEO and military shooting as firearms employment by a military. However, what benefits are gained by setting up such a classification? Is it useful?
In fact, it seems police shooting is intended to define a generic category of shooting in the professional field of Law Enforcement characterized by specific tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs). As aforementioned, such a classification implies there should be a shooting category for each professional field characterized by their own specific TTPs different between them. Then, this classification would exist just if all those specific TTPs of each category are different between them. However, that’s not the reality and almost always the same shooting TTPs are employed at any professional field.
Techniques, i.e. tools (gun grip, shooting stances, shooting on the move, squeeze on the trigger, aiming, etc.), are the same for everybody, or should a LEO, a military or an EP guy grip their weapons in a different way?
Regarding tactics, i.e. the different ways in which techniques can be combined to achieve an objective, they don’t depend on the professional field but on the tactical situation you are facing with, or shouldn’t a LEO, a military or an EP guy employ the same tactic to deal with a situation in which they have to shoot two threats approaching to them with the clear intention of stabbing them?
On the other hand, procedures, i.e. those sets of actions or steps that define the way to do something, don’t depend either on the professional field but the thing or task which is going to be done, or shouldn’t a LEO, a military or an EP guy follow the same procedure to check their weapons chamber?
According to all the aforesaid, it seems to make no sense to talk about police shooting or establish shooting categories such as military shooting, EP shooting, etc. I assess being more suitable to set up a classification of firearms shooting according to the aim of the TTPs employed. So that, I deem a possible clear and easy classification consists of just two shooting categories: tactical shooting and sport shooting.
Tactical shooting would include those TTPs focus on being use to deal with a tactical situation, that’s combat after all, so it could also be called combat shooting, though this designation could be considered inappropriate in the current society that doesn’t want to hear about anything related to war. Then this category doesn’t comply with any rule or regulation, there are no rules or regulations and everything happens randomly as in the real life. TTPs employed are developed to fit the reality of an engagement, a combat or a tactical situation. Besides, tactical shooting doesn’t depend on the professional field, so it is applicable to a LEO, a military, an EP guy, a security guard, a civy, etc.
Opposed to tactical shooting is sport shooting. This would include those TTPs focus on being use to deal with different sport shooting modalities in which everything complies with the rules and regulations of the competition. There are no tactical situations, combats or engagements, but just shooting exercises that even though they are designed trying to emulate the reality they are always limited by the rules and regulations and overseen by a referee who makes sure competitions regulations and safety rules are complied with. Sport shooting is also independent from the professional field of the shooter and depends just on the rules and regulations of each specific modality.
Nevertheless, sometimes tactical shooting will take specific TTPs from sport shooting adapting them to the reality of a tactical situation.
For example, regarding to shooting stances/positions, in sport shooting prone position requires not laying the magazine on the ground, however, in tactical shooting prone should be done that way if that provides a benefit for the shooter, because in combat there won’t be any referee to check magazine is not laid on the ground.
.
Thanks for your comment, bro!
Hello there, You have done an incredible job. I will certainly digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I’m confident they will be benefited from this site.