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.

[26 Inf]

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.

I was in before they began teaching MOUT - 1972-76 was my time. We shot strictly KD on Edson Range - essentially the 50 round National Match Course.

[26 Inf]

There have been a lot of good observations made in this thread. It may seem as if what follows is a drift off topic, but I don't intend it that way.....

When I went through the Academy in 1976, we watched a filmed called 'Observation and Perception on Patrol' (I think that is the title). If I could explain it in several words it would be 'look with the intent of seeing something.' We also saw a driving film which introduced a concept called 'commentary driving' - essentially talking to yourself about the environment in which you are driving. The one thing I remember about the film is the line 'uh oh, here's a ball, where is the kid?'

I took those two concepts to heart when I went back home and got into the habit of talking to myself while on patrol. After a while I didn't have to think about it, I just did it - mentally, not out loud like a schizo. This developed a sense of what I later came to know as SA (hey, it was 1976-77).

I have found many advantages to this habit aside from police work, but for our safety and well-being it is an important skill to develop - look with the intention of seeing something and being aware of the environment around us by talking to ourselves about what we see.

Taking it one step further, use Socratic questioning during practical training, began with the question 'What just happened?' follow it up with 'What is the most important thing for you to do right now? or, as Lou Holt said, 'What's Important Now?' Let the student solve the problem with gentle nudges provided by additional questions. When they've solved the problem with solutions THEY'VE arrived at, they buy into the solution and it gives the 'Timid Tommy's' a boost of confidence.

Obviously, these methods work best in small groups or individual training situations. They are ideal for structured force on force where you can halt the action with a signal, or if you are using a force simulator system such as FATS.

So, TLDR: When I've asked a student/officer 'what is important now?, after they've told me 'the driver busted out of the car and raised a gun so I shot him?' I've never received the response 'I should stand here and scan.' Nope, generally got more important things to do - the priorities:

1) Move - get off threat axis, create distance, get cover;
2) Head up in the fight - check environment
3) Reload
4) Head up in the fight - check environment
5) Blood sweep
6) Head up in the fight - check environment
7) Communicate
8) Head up in the fight - check environment

I truly believe in most circumstances the most important thing we can instill in someone is step one - move!

[echo5whiskey]

I figure now is a good time to recap what's been said so far. From what I gather the general consensus is:

• Technique is not as important/necessary as it's usually made out to be.
  
• The focus should be on actually searching and assessing--the process, not the movement.
  
• Searching and assessing is just a component of situational awareness.
  
• Situational awareness is a component of mindset.
  
• The focus of teaching should be on the mindset.
  
• The best way to teach it is to put the shooter in a situation/scenario, outside of a standard range environment.

Am I getting all that right? Did I miss anything? Am I just completely off the mark?

[26 Inf]

I think that is a fair summary.

In your first sentence I would say 'Dogmatic technique in searching and assessing is not as important..........'