Lets talk Marksmanship and Realistic Combat...

[rob_s]

Just a quick question that I've been twirling around in the old noggin...

When one relates accuracy and performance shooting, they usually refer to grouping size and the famed 3-5 rounds in the same hole...

I understand the basis of this for competition... however here's where my question comes in...

If it were a perfect world and one were able to shoot all rounds in the same hole... is this really the best possible tactic in engaging human targets?

In my opinion... would it not be better to spread the shots out across the chest, instead of stacking or touching rounds? It seems like hitting a target in 5-6 different parts of the chest would be vastly more effective than hitting the target 5 times in the same spot + - .5"

I am not talking combat accuracy or combat effective zones where its perfectly acceptable to hit a target under stress anywhere within an 8" circle....

I am talking about purposely hitting a target in different zones of the chest, not because of stress and body alarm reactions and breathing and so on... I mean specifically ON Purpose aiming at different regions of the chest to engage multiple organ systems instead of concentrating all fire in the same spot...

Not failure drills... where its 2 to the chest one to the head... or one to the chest and one to the head... I mean actually manipulating the rifle to engage different parts of the torso within say a 5 round burst

I know this is not practical, but I'd just like to hear opinions on the efficiency of engaging multiple areas of the chest instead of concentrating on only the center

I'm curious to know if you've been in combat, or served. I ask only because you and I can have a theoretical discussion all day long but if you've actually been in combat, like a0cake, then it's probably pointless for us to debate the issue but I'd sure like to hear if you have any stories like his.

[Reagans Rascals]

I have an idea for how to do this, actually, and it would be at the instructor's discretion as to when the target would drop.

I personally would just have it be completely random, each target is programmed to drop after a random number of hits, that always varies and changes after each set... some would drop on one, others would take 10... and the others would just keep coming and coming and force the shooter into a close combat drill

and program the speeds.... so some are really fast and some are slow... some speed up or stop and then speed up.... also you could program a few to pop back up a few seconds after being hit simulating someone that went down but wasn't effectively neutralized

I retain original ownership of the ideas presented in the previous statement

[rob_s]

Right, but that's not what happened. Everyone engaged continuously until the return fire stopped. It doesn't take long for a PPSh-41 to get 20 rounds off. There was never a lull in our shooting. Once he stopped firing, the threat was considered eliminated, and we moved into security and began trying to save his life, which lasted another 15 minutes. Fortunately, I haven't seen the mantra of "controlled pairs" being taught in quite a while, which is a good thing. I definitely agree with what you're saying.

"controlled pairs" has a place, IMO, in very new shooters or those not familiar with anything other than public/static-range shooting, but it's to get them to progress beyond that.

I used to say "fire some number of rounds" but now I use a phrase I heard attributed to our own F2S and that is "fire a burst", but first we build up to that if we're starting green. Controlled pairs and hammers (formerly "double taps") have other lessons in them other than "this is how you engage every living target".

[a0cake]

I personally would just have it be completely random, each target is programmed to drop after a random number of hits, that always varies and changes after each set... some would drop on one, others would take 10... and the others would just keep coming and coming and force the shooter into a close combat drill

and program the speeds.... so some are really fast and some are slow... some speed up or stop and then speed up.... also you could program a few to pop back up a few seconds after being hit simulating someone that went down but wasn't effectively neutralized

Now this is something I can get behind (either this or Rob's thing about the instructor choosing when it drops). The intentionally changing point of aim across different portions of the chest thing isn't worth anything in my view, but this is good. Closest thing I've seen along these lines is in TCP training for VBIED's. Similar concept, just with a mock vehicle on rails that behaved unpredictably. Integrating this concept effectively with transitions across multiple targets definitely has training value if setup and framed properly.

[a0cake]

"controlled pairs" has a place, IMO, in very new shooters or those not familiar with anything other than public/static-range shooting, but it's to get them to progress beyond that.

I used to say "fire some number of rounds" but now I use a phrase I heard attributed to our own F2S and that is "fire a burst", but first we build up to that if we're starting green. Controlled pairs and hammers (formerly "double taps") have other lessons in them other than "this is how you engage every living target".

Yeah, you're right. I think maybe they're useful in illustrating to people that you should be actively driving the gun continuously onto target between shots, rather than acquiring an initial point of aim and then just winging off a string of shots. Maybe only having to do it twice (IE...firing a controlled pair) is a good stepping stone in the learning process. Is this kind of what you're getting at? It's not a method that I use in teaching but would consider it.

[rickp]

the only thing that comes to mind is possibly making some type of moving target that is on a rail system that comes towards the shooter... and its programmed to go down after a random number of hits.... say the shooter steps to the line and there are 4 to 5 or maybe eve 6 of these railed targets in addition to poppers.... the targets begin to come at him and each one has a different drop number... so some will go down with 1 others will go do with 7 or 8... forcing them to shoot until they drop and also focusing on accuracy, malfunctions and combat reloads

sort of an ultimate dynamic range...

This training tool would be great to have.

Honestly this whole discussion will never bridge the gap between theoretical and practical. With the amount of movement going on and various other factors, deliberately doing something like you're describing is unrealistic and in the realm of fantasy.

I was wondering when this point would be made, thank you!!!!


I once trained with a LEO working undercover narcotics. He was in a trailer making a deal with the BG and all he had for a weapon was a small 38 revolver.
Shit hit the fan and as he fought with the dealer he pulled his revolver out and while making contact with the guys chest unloaded all rounds right by the BG's heart. As the entry team made entry in his support the dealer was still able to get 2 rounds off from his weapon barely missing the entry team coming through the trailer door.

The human body can take a beating and still keep coming, and that's when no drugs are involved. So don't stop until the threat is down or you run out of ammo, then start to beat him with anything you have.

[rob_s]

Yeah, you're right. I think maybe they're useful in illustrating to people that you should be actively driving the gun continuously onto target between shots, rather than acquiring an initial point of aim and then just winging off a string of shots. Maybe only having to do it twice (IE...firing a controlled pair) is a good stepping stone in the learning process. Is this kind of what you're getting at? It's not a method that I use in teaching but would consider it.

Kind of, yes.

something Kyle Defoor had us do was shoot a full 30-round magazine at close range at our normal pace to look at how the sights moved around. after 10 or so you can stop worrying so much about everything else that's going on and focus on what the sight is doing.

With new shooters I like to build to it, and work it into discussions of cadence relative to controlling and "driving" the gun. So initially we build. Controlled pairs, then triples,then quads, etc. and then we start calling random sequences. Most shooters figure out that they can go faster if they know ahead of time the number of rounds they will be firing will be lower.

This is the point that I'd like to introduce the falling target, that I control, and that they have to "shoot to the ground" and then go looking for.

Hope that makes sense. Kind of hard to summarize what is up to an hour block of instruction.

[SeriousStudent]

The motto of F2S Consulting: As accurate as needed, as fast as possible, as many times as it takes.

[C4IGrant]

The USA did a study that showed that accuracy under stress basically doubled. So if you can only shoot 8" groups at 25yds on a square range, then you will most likely shoot 16" groups at that same distance under the stress of someone trying to kill you.

Last weekend, Vickers taught a home defense class at Ft. Harmar in Ohio. The students did square range drills using a bullseye type target. Then when they got into the shoot house, the same target was utilized. After two runs with the bullseye targets, we changed them out for decision based targets (full color pics of people). When people do not have a small square or circle to aim at, their groups open up greatly.

Point to all of this is that you will most likely hit all parts of the body (without trying).



C4

[rojocorsa]

As someone with no experience other than on a square range, I want to thank y'all for the enlightenment. This has been a useful and educational.

Thanks!


But perhaps this thread belongs in the "training" section?