1. In response to an attack (carjacking, holdup, etc.) adrenalin-fed fight-or-flight takes over, you react blindly, forget almost all of your training, and draw clumsily because that's what you've been practicing, but you end up with your pistol pointed at a very surprised BG. He immediately surrenders (or runs off). Bad technique due to insufficient, and poorly constituted, practice; but good, effective outcome.
2. Marksmanship, for instance, is a far better technique than "spray and pray." But given military-style ammunition resupply, "spray and pray" (a technique much practiced in some of our own recent-past warfare) has been known to effectively get a defending force out from under the massive attentions of an attacking force. Bad technique, but good effect. See: Vietnam.
Mike: Has the Army gone back to teaching one-shot-at-a-time marksmanship? Last I looked, it hadn't.
(If someone wants to move this post to another thread, it's OK with me.)
My point is, a light can be very useful in the right hands if you are willing to practice using it properly. I'm not an expert on using a light with a gun in any type of situation, but I can definately see the usefulness.
Practice makes almost any tool useful.
(Do I go on too much about practice?)
The Army is currently emphasizing an avoidance of collateral damage, but is only taking a slightly different approach than it did when I was in the first time (early '90s).Mike: Has the Army gone back to teaching one-shot-at-a-time marksmanship? Last I looked, it hadn't.
The rifle qual course is similar, with 40 rounds fired at pop-up targets from 75 to 300 meters. The only difference is now 10 rounds are fired from kneeling rather than all prone. Emphasis is on single hits - you get 40 rounds for 40 target exposures. You qualify with both the Aimpoint and the backup iron sights.
There is also a "quick kill" course fired at short ranges (under 25 meters), starting at Low Ready. This involves fast pairs fired from standing, with pivots from left and right.
Machinegun quals are the same as they always have been: unrealistic.
The Army does not emphasize long range marksmanship like the Marine Corps does, unless one is a squad designated marksman or a sniper. SDMs get ACOGs and a special class on longer-range shooting, which I think goes out to 500 meters. I'm okay with the emphasis on shorter-range shooting, since the vast majority of real-world enemy contacts occur under 100 meters. I think 500 meter shooting with an M4 for the average trooper would be a waste of training time.
The Marines on the forum will now flame me, so I'd better go get my Nomex ACUs.
Since I harp so much on practice, an expert on another forum gets on my case about having to make sure to "practice the correct techniques, not the 'wrong' ones."
I half-way agree with her, in that practicing the "correct techniques" leads one closer to mastery and effective skill application. However, on this forum (where I don't have to argue with her), I will maintain that mere practice, if well-intentioned and practical, is, in and of itself, a good thing regardless of "correct technique" or "wrong" ones.
Practice, per se, can't be bad.
Regarding the correctness or incorrectness of a particular technique, it is of course highly subjective and varies from school of thought to school of thought. As one example, Chuck Taylor taught me the "correct" Weaver, but now I shoot from Modern Isosceles. But this Mod Iso is not the same as the "correct" Isosceles I learned from Mas Ayoob.
Whatever works to get the hits needed in the time frame allowed is "correct." Some ways may be more efficient than others, but pistolcraft is an evolving art, and we discover newer, more "correct" things as we go.