Asaa Combat Master Handgun Qualification

[gumshoe]

I have for years heard of the Combat Master Qualification course listed below, seems quite fast. Has anybody actually witnessed one of the Holy 12 pass the course?

Developed by Chuck Taylor, this is one of the most difficult pistol courses in the world. Currently, only 12 people hold this rank. It is included here for your interest--this is not an official document.

Target and Scoring: The test is shot on Chuck Taylor's proprietary target: a camoflaged silhouette roughly the same dimensions as an IPSC target, with an inner torso zone (X ring) of 11 by 13 inches, and an ocular zone (Y ring) of 3 by 4 inches. Hits in the X or Y zones count 5 points; hits on the target outside these zones count 3 (major caliber), or 2 (minor caliber) points.

The Test: All weapon presentations are from the holster. The test must be shot in this order, in its entirety.

STANDARD EXERCISES: 2 shots on torso (a 13" x 11" scoring area); perform each once. Total of 80 pts.

1 meter (m), Speed Rock, 1.0 second (sec)

1 m, Step Back, 1.0 sec

3 m, 1.0 sec

7 m, 1.3 sec

10 m, 1.7 sec

15 m, 2.2 sec

25 m, 2.7 sec

50 m, 6.0 sec

SINGLES (Presentations): 1 shot on torso; perform each a total of five times. Total of 25 pts.

7 m, 1.0 sec

PIVOTS and TURNS: 1 shot on torso; perform each a total of five times. Total of 75 pts.

90 degree pivot to the right, 1.0 sec

90 degree pivot to the left, 1.0 sec

180 degree turn, 1.2 sec

MULTIPLE TARGETS: 1 shot on each as listed. All shot from 5 m. Total of 45 pts. Targets are 1 m apart center to center.

2 targets, 1.2 sec

3 targets, 1.5 sec

4 targets, 1.8 sec

HEAD SHOTS: 1 shot per command. Total of 45 pts.

5 m, 1.0 sec. Perform a total of 4 times.

7 m, 1.2 sec. Perform a total of 5 times.

AMBIDEXTROUS STANDARD: 1 shot on each target. Total of 30 pts. Time limit 6.0 sec. Perform once.

7 m; candidate draws, fires 1 round at each of 3 targets, speed loads, transfers gun to weak hand, then fires 1 more shot at each target weak hand unsupported.

HOSTAGE SITUATIONS: 1 shot on each. Perform each a total of 5 times. Shot from 7 m. Total of 50 pts. Time limit: 1.2 sec each.

Head shot on felon past left side of hostage's head. Perform a total of 5 times.

Head shot on felon past right side of hostages head. Perform a total of 5 times.

TARGETS AT ODD ANGLES: 60% obscured by cover. 1 shot each. Shot from 7 m. Perform each a total of five times. Total of 50 pts. Time Limit: 1.2 sec each.

Target looking around right side of cover.

Target looking around left side of cover.

Next is the weapon handling phase. No points are earned, only deducted.

SPEED LOADING; NO SHOOTING. LOADING ONLY. Deduct 5 pts for each overtime. Perform a total of five times. 1.5 seconds each. Possible total deduction of 25 pts from shooting score.

TACTICAL LOADING. NO SHOOTING. LOADING ONLY. Deduct 5 pts for each overtime. Perform a total of five times. 4.0 seconds each. Possible total deduction of 25 pts from shooting score.

MALFUNCTION CLEARANCE DRILLS. NO SHOOTING. CLEARANCE DRILLS ONLY. Deduct 5 pts for each overtime. Perform a total of five times within time limits listed below. Possible total deduction of 75 pts from shooting score.

Position One (Failure to Fire): 1.0 sec

Position Two (Failure to Eject): 1.0 sec

Position Three (Feedway Stoppage): 4.0 sec

Qualification:

Possible total is 400 pts. You need 360 pts (90%) to pass. Penalties are assessed as follows:

5 pts are deducted from candidates score for each occurrence of the following offenses:

Premature start/"creeping"

Overtime shot. If caused by a malfunction and candidate properly clears it, no penalty is assessed.

Hit on hostage or object designated as cover.

Overtime speed load, tactical load or malfunction clearance.

[tightloop]

If I am not mistaken, our esteemed host Benos is a Combat Master. Don't know if it is the same course of fire, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least...

[JWK]

WARRIOR or GAMESMEN

IS PRACTICAL PISTOL COMPETITION STILL PRACTICAL?

Modern Pistolcraft has grown forcefully and dramatically since its birth in Southern California three decades ago. And, not surprisingly, there are a number of issues that have significantly influenced its success. Declining economies and social chaos, resulting in rising crime and terrorism, have spawned renewed interest in personal protection. Thus, particularly in the civilian sector, with little or no access to hard data concerning these issues, there is great interest in the concept of using competition to enhance personal weaponcraft skills.

And, in the beginning, this goal was pretty much achieved: most competitively developed techniques did further the state-of-the-art. We now know more about carrying, presenting, shooting, reloading and modifying the handgun than ever before. Many courses of fire and practice drills are beneficial as well and increasing numbers of practical shooting clubs are springing up all over the country.

However, toward the end of the 1970s, an alarming trend began to emerge. As used in its original context, the term "practical," was defined as a socio-politically acceptable synonym for "combat." The original purpose of the International Practical Shooting Confederation, for example, was to promote advancement of the handgun as a self-defense weapon. After all, the mission of the handgun is, in fact, defensive, right? We came this far by keeping this in mind, thus preventing a loss of purpose and resultant deviation from the intended theme of development.

Unfortunately, many participants in what came to be called "practical" shooting either forgot this critical fact or were never cognizant of it in the first place. Predictably, therefore, the organization's goal was altered towards competition being an end unto itself, rather than a means to a higher goal -- i.e. as a research tool by which better ways were found to utilize the handgun in a self-defense environment.

One example of this deviation is the "track meet," where physical movement assumes disproportionate competitive value. Stimulation of the metabolism via physical exertion is a legitimate simulation of the effects of stress. Used correctly, it provides an accurate picture of how various techniques can be expected to perform in real-world situations. However, when emphasis upon physical prowess begins to rival weapon skills in importance, things go astray. To see the fallacy in this, we need only to recall that the handgun is a defensive arm -- i.e. we carry it so we don't have to run!

The method commonly used to determine competitor performance is the "Comstock Count," which divides the shooter's point score by his elapsed time, for a points-per-second evaluation of his performance. In and of itself, the Comstock Method is not invalid. The problem is that it was intended for short-duration time frames, not complex "assault courses" in which the shooter moves considerable distances from location to location, solving multiple shooting problems along the way. When utilized improperly, "Comstocking" allows the speed at which the contestant moves from place to place to overshadow his shooting skills, making it a less than optimum way to judge what is supposedly a shooting match.

Another problem is that those who do not carry a handgun on a daily basis often lack an understanding of it as a weapon. This results in the creation of competitive courses that are not valid simulations of the situations in which a handgun is typically used. True, diversity prevents stagnation, but when diversity for its own sake becomes the issue, rather than being used as one element of consideration in trying to reach a higher goal, it becomes obfuscatory and therefore detrimental.

There is an even more serious, if subtle, danger here, too. The use of unrealistic courses of fire can -- and often does -- promote the development of tactics and techniques that, while competitively efficient, are from a tactical standpoint suicidal. As well, such courses favor the Condition One (cocked & locked) auto-pistol that many law enforcement and military personnel, because they must use issued DA autos or revolvers, cannot carry.

If competition is to be a means by which handgun state-of-the-art is to be advanced, we must maintain interest and competitive spirit, while at the same time remembering our original goal. Still, requiring competitors to do things that are virtually guaranteed to get them killed in a real fight is abominable and should not be allowed to continue.

This is admittedly easier said than done, and has, in fact, fallen by the wayside, causing a rift between those who regard the handgun as a weapon (the "Warriors") and those who view it as a recreational tool (the "Gamesmen") seriously enough to rip IPSC apart.

However, while admittedly one of the "Warriors" myself, I am not so quick as some of my associates to condemn the "Gamesmen." They have contributed a number of useful techniques even if their motives and tactics weren't survival-oriented. Most of the original Combat Masters weren't interested in the handgun as a defensive tool and only a few of them carried a gun for a living. Yet, their contributions -- the Weaver Stance, the Speed Load, et al -- have been incalculably valuable and, in fact, positively influenced the evolution of practical pistolcraft.

In short, we need "Gamesmen" to prevent stagnation, but at the same time, in order to benefit from their efforts, we must view their attitudes, motivations and accomplishments with a critical eye. Conversely, we need "Warriors," too, because while their philosophy isn't especially innovative, it is truly practical and keeps us on the track to finding better ways to stay alive in a pistol fight.

Other issues of conflict between the "Warriors" and "Gamesmen" include the use of:

1. Irrelevant targets. The use of silhouette targets typical to IPSC competitionconnotes an anti-personnel situation. Therefore, scoring methods should be based upon an accurate representation of the human anatomy.If the development of anti-personnel methodology is not the goal, then humanoid targets should not be utilized.

2. Unrealistically specialized guns, holsters and other ancillary equipment and squib-loaded ammunition.These further obfuscate the original goal of practical competition and makes evaluation of the techniques developed with such equipment more difficult. The use of "street legal" service guns, full-powered ammunition and realistic holsters and spare ammunition carrying devices should be mandatory if a real-world view is to be maintained.

So, is Practical Pistol Competition still practical? No, obviously not. As is typical with most types of competition, as viewed from its original perspective, it has become a highly specialized and irrelevant game -- an end unto itself rather than a means to a higher goal -- of little or no tactical value.

However, with a little tolerance on both sides and a few basic rules to prevent loss of purpose, we can produce a champion without compromising our integrity. The concept of learning is the basis upon which man has elevated himself above the level of both his cohabitants on this planet and his own ancestors. In order to continue this process, we cannot afford to lose sight of our goals along the way. If we can unite the "Gamesman" and "Warrior" factions within the practical shooting fraternity into a cohesive body truly dedicated to advancement, we all -- "Gamesmen" and "Warriors" alike -- win.

Besides, wouldn't it be more satisfying to be the Champion at something relevant and real?

[ErikW]

How about an attribution for that, JWK?

[JWK]

WOW! Where do I start?

[JWK]

How about an attribution for that, JWK?

It is from his web-site

[ErikW]

The author's name would be fine.

[JWK]

http://www.chucktaylorasaa.com/

[Patrick Sweeney]

A minor aside: The insistance on "anatomically correct" targets is statistically unsupportable. Ever looked inside a person? We do not all have the parts in identical locations, like the same model cars have their engine parts in identical places. To say that "the heart is here, and if you miss it by a fraction of an inch your score suffers" is to ignore positional variance in individuals.

Then there is the question of wound tracking. Not all wound tracks are straight as a line. Since peopel are 3-D and we're using 2-D targets, we must ignore tracking in scoring.

So, we go with a statistical representation of a "suitable" target area, which when struck would improve one's chances of correctly influencing (from our viewpoint, not the bad guy's) the outcome.

One may argue about the correct size, shape and placement in target area of said "improvement area" but to insist that it "correctly" represent the human anatomy is silly.

[tightloop]

I enjoy reading Chuck Taylor's thoughts on the differences in warriors and gamesmen. I am sure that everyone knows that at one time he was a very highly ranked IPSC shooter himself and competed on the US Silver Team in World Competition.

Having said that, help me to understand the revelance in posting this tome.

I don't think that after this long, the rift will be healed between the two factions. I think that USPSA has gone so far into the game aspect that it has effectively chased almost all of the warriors out of the sport. (they shoot IDPA now). The warriors will continue to train at places like Gunsite, TR, and LFI and feel smug in the knowledge that they are the better trained of the two factions, shoot real equipment, shoot over the counter ammo, and train in defense stiuations.

The gamers will continue to shoot their Foo Foo guns, starwars holsters and other equipment, compete in 30+ round field courses, sub 5 second speed shoots, and in general be able to do things with a handgun that none of the warriors will ever be able to do, or aspire to do.

So who cares, either way? If you want to be a gamesman and try for the GM card, great. If you want to be a warrior and try for the Combat Master title, great. Do your own thing, enjoy it and don't disparage the other, and all will still be able to work and play well with others.

If the posting of Mr. Taylor's thoughts on the two factions is beneficial in answering the question posed here, other than just reading the thoughts of a respected instructor and author, I don't see it. If it is just presented to offer some balance in thoughts and opinions, OK, I see that.

Maybe JWK will clarify.

[Skywalker]

Whenever I read anything about the dispute on practicality or not of IPSC shooting, I really don't understand the purpose of it.

I share TL's view: IPSC shooting is actually a sport, not a training ground for real tactical situations, ok, do you enjoy this? Shoot matches. Don't you like it, because it is no more tactical oriented? You have IDPA, Gunsite, LFI, Thunder Ranch, or you can even found your own league.

I think there is room enough for everybody in this field, and to me it looks like cross-partecipation from competitors is wildly spread, thus why complain and/or rant about the lack of this and that in IPSC shooting or any other shooting discipline?

We don't need any split, division, or (worse) dispute on the shooting sports, this would only reinvigorate anti-gun people.

[gumshoe]

Okay, Okay, all I wanted to know was does anyone know someone who has passed as a combat master. I did not wish to receive a testosterone-laced diatribe about the Warriors and Gamesman in IPSC.

What kind of Warrior are you, a solider, policeman, fireman, lawyer, NFL quarterback or did you simply finish first in your Wing Chun class.

We should extremely careful on how we throw around the Warrior label around. Real Warriors are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, any police or fire department that on a daily basis fight the bad guys of the world and minister to the sick or injured.

Some of us carry a firearm everyday professional, but we are not Warriors we are pistol shooters that enjoy our sport and search for knowledge to help us use those shooting skills if needed.

I have trained for the last 27 years in several types of pistol competition to prepare myself in the event that I will have to protect a loved one or myself. All of the disciplines helped round my skill.

I wish this us versus them bulls__t would end. All disciplines round your skill and none are perfect.

[rhino]

I'm not a gamesman . . . I'm a WORRIER!

[BigDave]

"Didn't Southwest Pistol League have some sort of byzantine system for determining "Combat Master" back in the dawn of time?"

That's correct. The SWPL had a system that tracked club members finishes over a long period of time. To be awarded Combat Master status, you'd have to accrue a certain number of points resulting from individual match finishes, and yearly totals. If you're wondering why I'm so vague it's because I haven't the slightest idea what that system was.

But then, to honor shooters who were not in the SWPL, they implemented a points system resulting from a shooters finishes at National and World level IPSC matches. The only part I remember for sure was that if you won a World Championship, you became and instant Combat Master. That could have been four points. If so, then, maybe it was something like 2 points if for top 5 at the Nationals, 1 point for top ten, or whatever. Can't say for sure. Anyway, of course The Great One made it with his World Match win, and I eeked it out with consistent finishes at the Nats.

I remember, at the time, Rob and I thought we were the , mainly because we dug Mike Dalton and Mickey Fowler so much (and they were behind the program).

But the really cool thing is that they discontinued the Combat Master thing a long time ago.

be

That is the Combat Master as it refers to our host. I believe C. Taylor's system is a bit different.

I'm not exactly sure what JWK's post had to do with your question Gumshoe.

[gumshoe]

Dig Dave I don't understand his response either

[chp5]

Rhino - LOL!

[tightloop]

Big Dave

Glad you cleared that up for me. And I like you and Gumshoe have NO idea what the JWK post had to do with the question posed...I am stupified...

[Detlef]

I have enjoyed training with Chuck on two occasions, and I enjoy hearing (though I do not share) his perspective on games vs. real world. Btw., he thinks no better (!) of IDPA than of IPSC for simulating real-world shootings.

He sure is a hell of a shot, very accurate, very fast. I still cannot hope to beat him at his own game (the Handgun Combat Master course that he came up with). I have shot the course twice (though 7 y ago, I was a B class USPSA shooter then...), and I did not pass. The times allowed are very tight, accuracy requirements somewhat demanding, too. It is all stand-and-shoot (or turn-and-shoot), so the comparison with IPSC is not a very good one.

I have met several of those who passed as HCM, and they were all very good shots by my standard, this is not a bullshit type of criterion or give-a-silly-title-to-yourself exercise.

If you master the Taylor HCM exercises, you are a good pistol shot, hat off from me.

--Detlef (USPSA M)

[JWK]

Having never heard of Chuck Taylor or the Combat Master Course

I did a google search. I read his tome, found it interesting, and posted it for others to

read.

[dajarrel]

Currently, only 12 people hold this rank.

Other than our esteemed host, who are the twelve who hold the Combat Master title as described by gumshoe. After reading the course of fire, it would seem they are indeed masters!!!!!

Dennis

[tightloop]

I only know of one who claims to be a Combat Master, and that is the owner of Front Sight Training Facility in Nevada, last name of Piazza

[Duane Thomas]

First name Ignatius, aka "Naish."

[Detlef]

we all know 'that' story, don't we?

Chuck never copyrighted or otherwise legally protected the term Combat Master, so after the rift between them Ignatius Piazza did, and redefined some of the criteria to make it easier for his school to give students this title. The Front Sight CM is not using the original course & requirements.

--Detlef

[tightloop]

You know Detlef, I get a flyer about once a quarter from that place. But you never hear anyone extolling their virtues. Wonder why? I mean the flyer is well done and sounds great, but it just doesn't have the prestige that Gunsite, TR of LFI have.

[Wakal]

Isn't Front Sight run by those wacky Scientologist types?

Liota and I took Chuck Taylor's 3-day pistol class about five years ago...nice guy, scary fast from under his TacticalGeek "ranger" vest.

Alex