Today, with even a quick look across the shooting community you’re likely to find an abundance of people supporting why they train a certain way or why one technique is better than another. When you begin to peel back all the opinion and assess the merits of any argument you’re likely to find a good bit of truth in all reputable techniques being taught or discussed in modern curriculum.
That’s because the universal truth in shooting is that the fundamentals are the same regardless of your skill level or the type of shooting you’re involved in. Having had an opportunity to train with and shoot alongside many different units and individuals, I quickly learned that the vast majority (80%) of shooting is pretty much the same across the board, with whatever mission specific modifications are required (10%) and the inevitable personal flair (10%) that finds its way into any shooters style after a while.
That being said, one of the first things we emphasize to our Clients is that there are clearly “WRONG” ways to do something. Our techniques are “A” way to do it, but not necessarily “THE” way. Ultimately, once they leave the structure and supervision of a schoolhouse, shooters will adopt some form of a merger between what they already did combined with what they’ve learned in training.
In other words, all shooters will do what’s comfortable for them – particularly while under pressure. Therefore, it’s our job as instructors to get our students comfortable with doing it “A right way.”
So how should we properly evaluate and select techniques? The SEEC Principles are a quick litmus test and a great place to start when looking at any technique whether it’s shooting, survival, driving, flying, you name it…
For a technique to be considered “valid” it should be:
1) Safe – Does it create an acceptable level of risk in an effort to achieve a desired outcome?
2) Effective – Does it achieve the desired outcome to the level of precision necessary?
3) Efficient – Does it minimize the number of task steps required to reach that desired outcome? Every additional step is a potential point of failure as well as increasing the time and energy involved.
4) Consistent – Does it provide a reliable means of achieving that desired outcome time and time again with little to no variation in results over an appropriate variety of applications?
If you can answer those questions to your individual or organization’s satisfaction, you’ve confirmed the technique to be acceptable for use. After that, it’s just a matter of which technique works best for the circumstances at hand. When building our tool box, the more acceptable techniques we have at our disposal, the better prepared we’ll be to react successfully to a critical situation in the real world.