Search and Assess

[echo5whiskey]

In my shooting career (both military and LE), I have come across several methods of searching and assessing. Early in my military career, it was "eye, muzzle, target." When I became an instructor, the Marine Corps was revamping its marksmanship program; and, in the process, searching and assessing was one of the things that changed--when I say changed, I mean it kind of became location-based depending on who the range officer was. As we were transitioning from iron sights to ACOGs, and from basic field-fire to a table system; our new range officer brought a new-to-me technique of just-below-ready and scan with eyes only. Once I became an LEO, my agency seems to have stuck with the latter method--though they don't even teach it for the basic qual, just for the tactical teams.

So, here's what I'd like to do: if you're a proponent of either method, let's have a friendly debate, if one exists, as to the merits of each and their usefulness. If you know of alternatives, go ahead and slap them into the mix too. ...and this goes for both rifles/carbines and pistols. If you think searching and assessing is a waste of time, tell me why. Let's see what you got.

[26 Inf]

I don't know if this is what you are going for, I hope this helps, I'm looking at it from an LEO/HD situation, because when I was in the Marines, by golly you stood on your hind feet at 200 and shot one target at a time.

We taught our recruits to anchor your weapon on the threat, or threat area, generally muzzle slightly depressed, and scan with your eyes.

The rational being that if you are moving the weapon with your eyes looking through the sights, by the time you see the threat, signal your brain to stop the swing and press the trigger, you are past the threat.

Even if the shooters are just moving the muzzle to cover, if you watch, you will see many muzzles jerk back to center on the target when using the eyes and the gun move method.

When engaging multiples we taught to shoot the threat, look for the next threat, move the muzzle to the threat, focus, shoot - 'shoot, look, move, focus, shoot.....' Teaching police shotgun we taught 'shoot, cycle and look, move, focus, shoot....'

Moving the muzzle when scanning kind of violates those principles.

I believe that one of the reasons folks adopt the move the muzzle/sights with the eye mentality are competitive events using the plate rack or other multiple target deals with the targets set at known locations - you know where to, and how much to, move the muzzle for the next target.

In terms of the whole 'cover down, scan, and breathe' mantra. While it is good in concept it is generally poorly presented in training and quickly becomes meaningless range ballet. In our program we had to start with the premise that the majority of our shooters had little or no experience firing a firearm. We also had to do with time constraints due to the schedule. Not an ideal situation, but reality.

I always felt we wasted a lot of time introducing the cover down scan and breath aspect the first day or two. Some of our staff spent more time haranguing students to cover down than they did correcting marksmanship problems.

Plus, a thinking man quickly observed that the recruits weren't think about why they were doing what they were doing when you saw them focusing on scanning after admin loads or after clearing the weapon before going to the holster.

JMRO, I hope I understood your question.

[SeriousStudent]

Interesting thread, and I am definitely looking forward to this discussion. OP - thanks for starting it.

I'm also very curious how an instructor teaches this on a plain old square range. Do you introduce items uprange? Have AI's perform some action before or after a evolution?

This could be a very valuable/sticky thread, and I'll happily prune posts if they get off-topic.

26 Inf - I like your term "range ballet". I have also heard people use the term "gun kata". I'm pretty sure we are thinking the same thing.

[echo5whiskey]

I don't know if this is what you are going for...

That's pretty much exactly what I was looking for. It's interesting to me that it changed from the time you were in, to the time I was in. Since the method I was taught was around before I joined, I can only guess what happened. Since I can only guess, I'd say that the eye-muzzle-target idea probably stemmed from MOUT/CQB that the Marine Corps began integrating into infantry school. To clarify, we were never instructed to keep sight picture. We were always told to look over the sights. Nevertheless, range ballet is exactly what it became at our facility, regardless of the method. It wound up being that the shooters would put in just enough effort to not get yelled at by their coach.

Interesting thread, and I am definitely looking forward to this discussion. OP - thanks for starting it.

I'm also very curious how an instructor teaches this on a plain old square range. Do you introduce items uprange? Have AI's perform some action before or after a evolution?

This could be a very valuable/sticky thread, and I'll happily prune posts if they get off-topic.

26 Inf - I like your term "range ballet". I have also heard people use the term "gun kata". I'm pretty sure we are thinking the same thing.

My last statement kind of rolls into this one. What we wound up doing was changing the approach we took when we certified Combat Marksmanship Coaches (CMCs) and Trainers (CMTs). When the course transitioned from the standard KD range (Table 1) to the combat-oriented training (Table 2), we would set up students three targets apart. They would have their assigned target point with a target to their left and right. When I was in the tower, I would select a random shooter and face one or both of his/her peripheral target(s) immediately after completing the perscribed drill, for only one second. I became fairly clear who was just going through the motions, because they would have to raise their muzzle back to the ready and rarely hit high center-mass. My facility only had square ranges, so that's the best that we could come with at the time with what we had (pneumatic, timed turners). Giving the students the idea that they actually had to look for something, seemed to improve their grasp on the concept.

For carbines/rifles, I still prefer the second method (eye scan). In my experience, it's easier to snap your muzzle to LOS from center, than to drag all the way across your FOV. For pistols (for transparency, I've only been to one course that actually incorporated S&A), I've been working with the idea of bringing the pistol to a modified-"chest ready" while eye scanning. My theory is that you can still shoot while indexed at the chest, while reducing the distance the muzzle has to travel across FOV. As you find a peripheral target, you can push the muzzle back out to extension while getting rounds on target. I hope that's not confusing.

[Chameleox]

There are a few threads covering scan&assess and other techniques that can be "range kata" for good or bad. Several years ago, one of our SMEs here noted that scan&assess wasn't part of his team's range training, but they consistently found themselves doing it in the shoothouse or in real-world.

Personally, I've preferred to instill a sense of problem solving, vs making shooters do rote movements with no stimulus or drive. While there are clearly advantages to regaining situational awareness after addressing a threat, there are so many ways to do it that simply making shooters look left and right (with or without their muzzle) doesn't reinforce what we are really trying to get at. Even if you did give the shooters on the line something to see, like a threat (I know of one instructor who held up a sign saying "3 more rounds!"), they can't safely address an up-range problem, so what do you do then?

Scanning after a shoot can mean looking to either side, but it can also mean doing a 360, checking yourself for extra holes, re-focusing on the downed threat, or maybe moving or checking around a piece of furniture or around the next corner. Situation dictates.

With the gun or without the gun? I have no preference, though if I am scanning with a pistol, I usually tuck it in some fashion. I've done both, I've had students do both. What matters more to me is whether or not they can explain why they did it the way they did.

My preference, given adequate resources, is to reinforce the concept in the shoothouse or in force on force, where I can introduce a variable from an odd angle, or from farther down range, and reinforce the need to scan and assess, vs just shaking your head.

[echo5whiskey]

There are a few threads covering scan&assess and other techniques that can be "range kata" for good or bad...

Good stuff, thanks. I tried a site search, but apparently something went wrong because I kept getting an error. My apologies if this is a dupe thread.

To be clear, although my thread is focused on methodology, I'm not necessarily seeking methods for the sake of methods. I completely agree that the best thing would be to incorporate a spherical, real-world environment; but unless you have those resources, you're stuck having to make do with what you have. My point in all this is to establish effective, practical...practices in order to establish the underlying principle.

I can understand why a SME's team wouldn't incorporate it in their training. They are dedicated shooters whose job is to seek out targets. That is their mindset. They don't need anything in addition.

...which brings me back to my purpose. It is not for the sake of teaching or using a method, it for the sake of training the mindset. For someone whose job title does not include "slaying bodies," they need what to do. The scanning part is not that difficult to understand, but what do they do with their gun? I had active duty Marines finish a drill, and immediately drop their M16 to low-slung. I teach license to carry classes, and I offer my students a little extra, optional time for an ungraded discussion in mindset and SA. Most of them are clueless as to what to do with their handgun while trying to maintain SA. I've had everything from re-holstering to flagging every bystander in the area. So, touch on one of your statements, situation absolutely dictates. But if methods can be introduced to instill the desired mindset, and that can cover a variety of circumstances; I don't take issue with using them.

[Chameleox]

Good stuff, thanks. I tried a site search, but apparently something went wrong because I kept getting an error. My apologies if this is a dupe thread.

I only brought it up to point out that there's some solid info around here; not to say that this thread shouldn't be a stand-alone. I think it's a great discussion.

I don't bring up the SME's experience as proof; more of a point that a technique that's not practiced on the range can make its way into actual use. I hate the "XXX does it so it must be good" argument; if that's how it came across, I apologize. Astute and well trained practitioners will find a way to check their work, their surroundings, and bystanders. My own experience mirrors this on a much smaller level. You don't need to be a high level professional to make that happen, but you do need enough gas in the tank to make decisions.

Resources matter. I'm lucky in that regard.

At the end of it all, I'm not going to jump a student if they scan, if they don't scan, if their muzzle tracks with them (safely), or if they keep it fixed on target and scan with their eyes only. I just ask that they have an explanation for why or why not if asked. If I were in your shoes, teaching CCW classes, I'd show and rep some options, explain the why's and why not's, and ask students to be responsible for their choices from there on.

[echo5whiskey]

I only brought it up to point out that there's some solid info around here; not to say that this thread shouldn't be a stand-alone. I think it's a great discussion.

I don't bring up the SME's experience as proof; more of a point that a technique that's not practiced on the range can make its way into actual use. I hate the "XXX does it so it must be good" argument; if that's how it came across, I apologize. Astute and well trained practitioners will find a way to check their work, their surroundings, and bystanders. My own experience mirrors this on a much smaller level. You don't need to be a high level professional to make that happen, but you do need enough gas in the tank to make decisions.

Resources matter. I'm lucky in that regard.

At the end of it all, I'm not going to jump a student if they scan, if they don't scan, if their muzzle tracks with them (safely), or if they keep it fixed on target and scan with their eyes only. I just ask that they have an explanation for why or why not if asked. If I were in your shoes, teaching CCW classes, I'd show and rep some options, explain the why's and why not's, and ask students to be responsible for their choices from there on.

No misunderstanding from me. I think we're actually pretty close to the same page. My apologies if my reply seemed snarky or challenging, that was not my intent.

I'm more concerned with students' grasp on SA. If they have none when we start, I just like to have something to introduce to get the point across in a controlled, tactically/practically-sound way.

[Itsahak]

I think it can be good think to scan and assess. To break the tunnel vision that many people find themselves in. However I think it can also be over-stressed. I've seen range instructors freak out on people when they didn't scan and assess. I don't understand that mentality either. Especially when you're not in a military unit. Regardless, we tend to teach to ensure the initial target is down (what could be worse than taking your eyes off of the bad guy/girl, look around and then find out they aren't out of the fight after all!), then do a measured look around, always taking time to recheck the bad guy/girl.

I took a class once where the instructor called it the "Tactical Pony Tail Flip" due to how dudes would whip their head side to side so fast that there was no way they could actually see, process and act upon anything they might have seen. It was interesting to see video footage of it later when we worked it ourselves on the range. After that, we slowed it down significantly.

[echo5whiskey]

I think it can be good think to scan and assess. To break the tunnel vision that many people find themselves in. However I think it can also be over-stressed. I've seen range instructors freak out on people when they didn't scan and assess. I don't understand that mentality either. Especially when you're not in a military unit. Regardless, we tend to teach to ensure the initial target is down (what could be worse than taking your eyes off of the bad guy/girl, look around and then find out they aren't out of the fight after all!), then do a measured look around, always taking time to recheck the bad guy/girl.

I took a class once where the instructor called it the "Tactical Pony Tail Flip" due to how dudes would whip their head side to side so fast that there was no way they could actually see, process and act upon anything they might have seen. It was interesting to see video footage of it later when we worked it ourselves on the range. After that, we slowed it down significantly.

LOL. Another great term. What you are describing is exactly why we would give students unexpected targets. It would get them out of the mechanical repetitiveness, and into actually scanning for threats.

That's another great point to include in SA. "Target down" does not necessarily equal target incapacitated/lack of threat. I like where this thread is going.