Issues with group training of "advanced" shooters

[silvery37]

I am interested to see what people think about what I have posted, specifically:

Is this something that other people have come across?
What kind of training programs have you seen implemented in a large agency or unit that address these problems?
I focus on pistol shooting but this could be applied to rifle/carbine as well.
Am I totally off in what I am perceiving as the problem and how to fix it?


I have seen an issue with firearms training with people where the individuals involved are expected to be highly proficient shooters but their true abilities do not meet this expectation. For example this could be a SWAT team, police academy firearms instructors, a vip security detail, agency marksmanship team, etc. The people are typically what I would consider advanced shooters and they are able to operate and manipulate their weapons competently but their shooting skills, when viewed as a team vary widely. The main issue I have seen is that the training is not goal focused.

For example a typical training session consists or 150-200 rounds fired. These rounds are fired on a variety of shooting drills. The shooters are not evaluated in a specific manner with the exception of other shooters looking at their hits on the target. Shots are not timed and running people through a drill one at a time is rare.

As stated earlier all of these people shoot at a level where they can generally shoot small groups at 7 yards, make hits at 25 yards, reloading, drawing, and malfunctions are dealt with in a correct way. The problem is that in the training session it is very doubtful that any of the shooters could answer the following two questions at the end of the training. What specific shooting skill did you improve on today and how would you quantify that improvement?

A similar situation would be training for running. If a person wanted to be an exceptional runner they would have to set goals. If you went and ran 3 miles every other day but never timed the run it would be very difficult to measure improvement. Maybe you occasionally throw in a sprint workout but you never time this either. How would you know you are getting better? A person that has gone from no exercise to this would see improvement because the runs would get easier. But someone who is already fit would have a difficult time in identifying improvement. Even if they did improve how would they know it?

To improve in shooting there must be goals. After a person is an advanced shooter the metric for improvement becomes time. You can shoot little groups at 7 yards, now how fast can you do it. You can reload but how fast can you do it. This may turn some people off as time based assessment can be viewed as becoming competition focused. For me the answer to this is simple. Is the person that wins a gunfight the fastest or the most accurate. Speed without accuracy is meaningless, but the winner in a gunfight is the person that delivers accurate shots the fastest. You must have both.

For a team the biggest weakness must be identified and then training focused to improve that weakness. I think Paul Howe's shooting standards are great for this. They are very simple and incorporate pretty much all necessary shooting skills, two handed shooting, single hand shooting, reloads, draws, malfunctions, close shooting, precision shooting, distance shooting. The other great thing about the drills is that they are pass or fail. There is no ego involved where the shooter can blame the trainer. Either they passed the standard or they didn't. Todd Green's FAST drill is also a great drill to evaluate a shooters overall skill. In the case of Paul Howe's standards if the trainer keeps records, and each shooter will need to be evaluated one at a time in order to get a baseline, the biggest weakness for the group can be identified. At the next training session this specific shooting skill can be the focus. At the end of the session the trainer can again evaluate each shooter one at a time to identify improvement.

Another possible use of specific drills like this is downright peer pressure and embarrassment. Again the drills are entirely objective. You passed or you didn't. At more advanced levels or once all shooters are passing specific times could be added. Motivation can be added if the results are posted for everyone to see.

To advance your shooting skills you need specific goals. This is even harder in group training where it is easy to grab some drills out of a binder and run everyone through. This basically results in a training session that is familiarization or remedial. To advance a persons shooting skills weaknesses must be identified and then those weaknesses specifically addressed and evaluated for improvement.

[Preliator]

I am guessing that by "firearms training" what you mean is marksmanship training by the flavor of the rest of your post. I don't remember ever doing marksmanship training specifically with SWAT - basically you could not even get on the team unless you demonstrated a high level of proficiency in the area. Any training after that was dedicated to doing something with that marksmanship. Shooting on the move, engaging moving targets but mostly dealing in the tactics of shooting, using light to your advantage, shooting in groups and stacks, certain methods for clearing rooms, hallways and stairs. Certain positions required other marksmanship training (Designated Marksman or Sniper).

Now if you are talking Direct Action Special Forces or FBI HRT then that could be a different story - but outside of my realm of experience.

[a0cake]

There's a real training tendency - in the realm of units and organizations rather than individual shooters - to separate the training regimen into two distinct forms:

1) Individual Marksmanship
2) Team based movements / Fire and Maneuver/ SUT

In most good organizations, the individual marksmanship side is standards based, with good metrics for measuring performance, and goal-oriented. Same for the fire and maneuver / tactics training at the group level.

But what tends to happen is that marksmanship is forgotten when training small unit tactics, which is when everything is supposed to come together. The maneuver piece is honed and analyzed, but there is often very little feedback on whether the fire is accurate.

The real money gets made when the two areas are bridged, and a synthesis is created, with reliable metrics for providing feedback. This ensures that shooters aren't applying proper marksmanship while on the range, and then just making noise during fire and maneuver, which for some reason, many people have a tendency to do.

How this gets done, specifically, will vary greatly with the METL (Mission Essential Task List) of the individual units. It would be hard to define a specific set of parameters that would work for more than one organization.

[Surf]

I have been doing pretty much what you are talking about for some time now. I primarily deal with Local, State, Federal LE and select Military units. Those who enter my courses are NOT new shooters, are seasoned at what they do and have found their way into my courses through their respective agencies / units due to a selection process that has shown a reflection of their experience, aptitude and ability. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

Having said that, I have tried many ways of teaching and things will vary depending on the actual individuals in the class and the time frame I have to work with them. If they are lucky enough to be enrolled in the basic through advanced 10 week course that I am involved with, that means that I will have them for 2 weeks of basic firearms, 1 week of advanced tactical / combat shooting and then 3 days of HRT / shoothouse training, plus additional days of Dig Pro, VBSS, Aircraft, Vehicle, Bus Assault etc.

Now if we strictly look at my 2 week basic, it is broken down into week 1, which is 3 days pistol and 2 days shotgun. Week 2 is 4 days of rifle, irons only. Day 5 is makeups or individual challenges (fun day if no remedial is required). For my basic courses, I treat everyone like they have never handled a weapon. I have a very strict crawl, walk, run progression, however the progression will be at a much more rapid pace then with a truly new shooter. In other words, I will cover all the same topics, but will progress through the topics much faster. This ensures, that all of the students know exactly what I want them to know and it will help me to identify if there are students who are lacking in certain basic or fundamental areas. With classes that have their shit together it goes quickly. Others may progress slower, but I am not there to hand hold either and if students really don't belong in the course due to their firearms skills they have 3 days to sink or swim at the pace I deem to be on par with where their skill level should be for this training course. All 3 weapons have the same concept for training progression.

Why do I do this type of training progression? I do not take ANYTHING for granted on a students prior training and / or experience especially when they come from differing agencies / units as there is no guarantee in the continuity of prior training and especially correct and proper training. Doing an advanced crawl, walk, run, ensures that all students have an understanding and mastery of the fundamentals, ensures that the entire class is on the same page as far as understanding of the fundamentals, terminology, etc, etc, etc and that there is no misunderstanding in the methods or techniques that I want to see the students perform. I know exactly where the class is at and they know exactly where I am at. It is much easier than assuming students have their shit together because without a doubt, you as the trainer, will invariably be jumping all over the place trying to correct issues or answer questions if you just assume a students knowledge / skills. The course runs much smoother by breaking them down to zero and doing a rapid crawl, walk, run progression. This also helps that class or any shooter who has attended those courses to very smoothly transition or progress into the advanced shooting courses if they do not attend the full 10 week program straight, as some attend the course as it is broken down into 3 phases or blocks.

The key with this above method is that time and resources are on the trainers side. In a more condensed time frame similar concepts can be applied but need to be slightly tweaked. With a short course, I may still use a crawl, walk, run concept, however I might first quickly get into certain drills that are designed to test a shooters skills / abilities, then assess where they and the class as a whole is at and tailor my progression from there.

[Arctic1]

I am assuming that you are talking about applying a standard for team oriented drills, correct? Either time or accuracy?

If so, my experiences mirror what a0cake said in his post.

However, I do not think that assessing marksmanship fundamentals should be the main focus during team/squad drills. It is important that all targets that are supposed to be shot are shot, and applying a standard to the drill for the group as a whole in terms of accuracy that way.

But to assess wether or not guys shoot fast enough or accurate enough at an individual level, as part of a group, is going to be difficult. They will solve the problem they are given in the manner they do, and that is what needs feedback.

During these drills my focus is dependant on if I want to focus on individual skills; choice of firing position, bounding technique, use of cover/concealment, communication, safe weapons handling etc, or if I want to focus on what the SL did; orders, plans, communicating orders and plans, choice of course of action, choice of attack direction, use of fire teams etc. Similar focus areas if I am assessing a platoon leader.

If you want to assess the progression of a shooter, then running each shooter through a lane drill, that tests both accuracy and speed, is better in my opinion, in addition to standard shooting drills on a firing line at various distances. Wether or not individual follow up is needed, in regards to time standards etc, is dependant on the drills being shot. Some drills only test accuracy, no timer needed. Other drills measure both speed and accuracy, and indivual follow up is needed.

The goals of a training session should reflect the number of students and instructors, to ensure that the goals are in fact met. If the main instructor aims to high, so to speak, and no one achieves any of the goals, then som re-evaluating is needed of the class curriculum.