Cadence of 4 shots

[freakshow10mm]

Start off with I have no formal weapon training of any kind. I'm self taught. I was in one gunfight in my life and I was still a teenager and it scared the crap out of me enough to get counseling to deal with it (I was 15). I got shot at, I shot back with 20ga slugs, and I'm here, the other guys didn't make it. That's about my experience with actual experience, which is very limited compared to others here. Besides that it's been hunting, IDPA (where you're told how many shots on target) and informal blasting.

Have and watched the first Magpul Dynamics DVD several months ago. Watched it again fairly recently. Have the second one on order as of tonight.

I recall Mr Costa talking about a cadence of 4 shots but I never caught an explanation as a good or useful tactic or any rational behind it.

I was thinking it relates to ammunition capacity, but a 30rd mag doesn't break even, but a 20rd would, yet the videos show the 30s in use so that' can't be it.

Did I take something out of context with the "cadence of 4 shots"? Mr Costa shoots the cadence quite a bit in the demos he does before the students run them. I don't get it.

[Jay Cunningham]

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in some type of set cadence or response. If you are faced with a potentially lethal threat that you cannot safely retreat from and you have entered Condition Red and the fight is on, you shoot until the threat goes away - however much that takes.

AOTTC may have been simply trying to break people out of the "standard response", that being two shots COM.

[freakshow10mm]

AOTTC may have been simply trying to break people out of the "standard response", that being two shots COM.
Hadn't thought of that part. Makes sense though. Not everyone falls to one torso shot or even two. Perhaps he uses that as a mechanism to "bring an open mind".

[Failure2Stop]

I work with cadence quite a bit to teach students how fast they can go and maintain my accuracy standards. It is size and distance dependant.

Repetative use of cadence fire drills helps the student master grip and body position.

At the end of the day, if the student defaults to drill repetition against an actual threat and dumps 5 rounds into the heart it's a better response than defaulting to just one or two to the same area.

[Submariner]

I work with cadence quite a bit to teach students how fast they can go and maintain my accuracy standards. It is size and distance dependant.

Repetative use of cadence fire drills helps the student master grip and body position.

How do you conduct the drill?

[Failure2Stop]

I can't see what video VMI-MO linked to (iPhone), but I suspect that it is the half and half drill, which is a very good drill and covers the reasons I was talking about, though it isn't the exact same repetitions I do simply due to the intent of the drill and my use as a training tool.

[rob_s]

Forgive the rambling, this is something I've been focusing on a bit more in the last few months...

Taking formal training classes you always get different take-aways and sometimes they aren't the big lessons. One of the things I took away from Bill Jeans carbine last year was his version of a non-standard response. It wasn't a set round count, it was 2-4 rounds with the exact number determined by the shooter. Around the same time here there was a very small discussion re: knowing when one was done, taking yourself out of the "fight" and the impact that known-round-count drills have on that.

Subsequently I have developed my own "standard response" at our drills nights. I ask the shooters to engage targets typically with as many rounds as they believe they need to neutralize the target. I also encourage them not to begin the drill with a set number of rounds in mind but to begin shooting and then stop when they think they are done. Obviously on non-reactive targets this is a mind game as much as anything.

Last month we did emergency-reloads and transitions to handgun. We had the shooters load their magazines with 2-4 rounds and fire the carbine until empty then perform the skill and then finish with two more rounds. In hindsight I wish I had them shoot more after the skill and had them perform a different count as well.

Having trained with Travis and Chris, one of the things I liked about the training was that even when they had you shooting a prescribed drill they often had shooters fire more rounds if the shooter appeared to take themselves out of the fight too early or look "done". I shot a drill with them where you were sitting at a table and had to get up and put two rounds on each of three targets. I performed the drill and was being lazy with my scan afterwards and was feeling all gloaty and proud of myself when Chris yelled at me "THREE MORE ROUNDS ON EACH TARGET! SHOOT 'EM! GO, GO, GO!" while my head was turned around looking behind me.

On the one hand this is a topic that is of specific interest to me at the moment after Bill's class, but on the other we've been working with this for years at our carbine matches. We don't design stages with x-number of rounds per target like IDPA or IPSC/USPSA, but instead developed a scoring system whereby the target is either neutralized or not. Yes, that scoring is still based on x-number of rounds in certain scoring zones but it's up to the shooter to decide how confident they feel that they can get that number of hits going in as well as to judge their own performance on the back side and decide if any given target has gotten enough.

All that said, some drills are scored and require a set number of rounds. Some drills are working on specific skills and require a certain number of rounds to accomplish this. I think that the key is not to get set in a certain "standard response" of x-number of rounds for each drill but keeping a variation and keeping the shooter thinking with each drill.

[rob_s]

I can't see what video VMI-MO linked to (iPhone), but I suspect that it is the half and half drill,
Yes, it was.

I like the 1-5 drill (http://www.youtube.com/user/VikingTactics#p/u/7/FaCpOt9xVy4) even more.

For those not making the jump, it's three targets with 1 shot on the first, 2 on the second, three on the third, 4 back on the second, and 5 back on the first.

[ToddG]

Round count on demand vs. on command depends a lot on the specific drill. There are certain things that work best with a dictated number of rounds per iteration. But for most drills, I prefer to let the shooter work it out.

When I teach, we do a lot of 2-5 round "bursts" (for lack of a better term). The instructions I give:


Try not to shoot the exact same number of rounds at a target twice in a row.
If you had good follow-through (saw your front sight rise properly from your aiming point) and feel like you landed good hits with your first few shots, shoot towards the lower end.
If you didn't have good follow-through or otherwise don't feel like you were getting good hits, stay in it and fire a few more rounds until you feel like you've shot enough rounds to accomplish the goal.
If you're low on ammo (on the belt or overall for the rest of the class), fire more 2's and 3's. If you have a ton of ammo and want more practice shooting strings, fire more 4'2 and 5's.


The idea is to add a certain amount of decision-making to each iteration of a drill. While simply varying the number of shots you'll fire is better than locking into a "2+1 standard response" type thing, even drills like the 1-5 Drill are calling for specific pre-determined engagements.

In my experience, the best tool for teaching realistic engagements (short of FOF , of course) is the turning target system. Have students engage a target until it disappears, whether that's 1 round or 10 rounds. This is also a good way to drive home the concept that if a bunch of shots COM haven't had an effect it's time to change target zones.

[Submariner]

In my experience, the best tool for teaching realistic engagements (short of FOF , of course) is the turning target system. Have students engage a target until it disappears, whether that's 1 round or 10 rounds. This is also a good way to drive home the concept that if a bunch of shots COM haven't had an effect it's time to change target zones.

This makes sense.

Anyone care to share their experiences with purchasing and using turning targets?

Or should I start a new thread?

[ToddG]

Keep in mind that a cadence is not, strictly speaking, the best or fastest way to shoot. Getting hits isn't about keeping a beat, it's about proper trigger press when you're seeing an adequate sight picture.

If you lose your sight during recoil or see your sight dip/move during your trigger press, it makes more sense to fix the problem rather than just firing a round to maintain a set cadence.

[rob_s]

Todd makes a good point.

What I found worked for me and therefore try to pass on is starting out at a speed that I am reasonably confident I can get the sight picture in the time I need. Let's say that it's one shot per second (to exaggerate) to re-acquire the dot 90% of the time or more before I press the trigger. I worked that cadence until it became 100% of the time and then sped up to .75 seconds per shot where I wasn't making the 90% anymore, then kept improving until I could get it 100% of the time again. Repeat.

I use this same approach in weight lifting where I have a target number of reps, lets say 10, and I use the a weight that allows me to only do 8. I keep working this until I can do 12 (over three sets) and then up the weight to a point that I can only do 8 again.

What I've had trouble with with some shooters is that they get an inconsistent cadence from shot to shot while they hunt for the dot which they can't find due to bad stance, bad grip, a fly flew in front of them, it's Tuesday, the moon is full, whatever. Having a target time interval dictated by the cadence gives them an incentive to do what they have to do to make the hit. Yes, that means that every so often they'll drop a shot because they squeezed when they weren't really ready but that is an incentive and teaching tool as well.

Which makes me wonder... we've all done drills with a par time. We've all done the drill with a longer time and then kept decreasing the time as skill increased. I wonder if there's any benefit to establishing a cadence and having students fire a string on a given cadence and then progressively shortening the interval?

[ToddG]

I wonder if there's any benefit to establishing a cadence and having students fire a string on a given cadence and then progressively shortening the interval?

Circle Drill (http://pistol-training.com/drills/circle-drill)