Abstract
<jats:p>The study is based on a comparative analysis of two training paradigms: the classical military firearms training system and practical shooting methodologies derived from disciplines such as IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation) and IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association). The classical approach emphasizes accuracy, strict procedural compliance, and gradual mastery of shooting fundamentals, including sight alignment, trigger control, breathing regulation, and safe weapon handling. Training is typically conducted under controlled conditions, using static targets and standardized exercises designed to establish a strong foundation of marksmanship skills. In contrast, practical shooting focuses on the integration of speed, accuracy, and power according to the DVC principle (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas). This methodology introduces dynamic movement, target transitions, shooting from unconventional positions, weapon manipulation under time pressure, and rapid decision-making. Practical shooting exercises simulate realistic combat conditions more effectively than static range training by exposing trainees to physical and psychological stressors that resemble those encountered during actual combat operations. Particular attention is devoted to the psychological dimension of firearms training. The use of shot timers, competitive scenarios, and dynamic exercises contributes to the development of stress resilience, concentration, and decision-making abilities. Unlike traditional methods, which often encourage fear of mistakes due to their examination-oriented nature, practical shooting promotes adaptive behavior and confidence in handling unexpected situations. As a result, trainees become more capable of maintaining operational effectiveness under conditions of fatigue, uncertainty, and time constraints. The findings suggest that neither methodology should be considered sufficient when applied independently. Classical training provides essential theoretical knowledge, technical precision, and discipline, while practical shooting develops adaptability, tactical awareness, and rapid response capabilities. Therefore, the study supports the implementation of a hybrid training model that combines the strengths of both approaches.</jats:p>