Search and Assess

[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.

[ST911]

FI's spend waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time and attention on the scan and assess process. We create exhaustive, multi-step, terminology-laden dogmatic processes that busy shooters minds with everything but priorities. Endless debates about the minutiae follow, usually to no productive outcome or agreement even among highly credentialed and experienced people.

Move the head/gun together, or just the head?
Finger on or off trigger? When?
Primary/secondary scan?
360 degree check, just the head or turn the whole body?
Include gun check? Injury check?

The goal is to break tunnel vision, ensure threat stays down, improve SA (new attackers, arriving friendlies). It's not that complicated. You have to teach something though. The trouble is that the chosen technique may have no foundation other than it being the most compatible with the venue's square range safety rules, and the last or most influential course on the venue's instructor.

[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!

[hotrodder636]

Good post with some good perspective. A similar thread to this was out a while ago and the OP seemed defensive in the following discussion.

[echo5whiskey]

FI's spend waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time and attention on the scan and assess process...It's not that complicated. You have to teach something though. The trouble is that the chosen technique may have no foundation other than it being the most compatible with the venue's square range safety rules, and the last or most influential course on the venue's instructor.
(emphasis mine)

That's the crux of the matter. There is too much time spent on methodology across every point of shooting and tactics (gunfighting), and not enough on the theory, or why the particular methods are used. If you create a method only for the sake of something new, it serves no purpose--except maybe to bring you a few minutes of fame until your method is shown to be useless or the fad wears off. If we as an industry (FIs) would spend more time on the why, the what would be a lot easier to teach; and it would allow students to build their own critical decision-making skills for whatever dynamic environment they might find themselves in.

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

I don't think it's off topic at all. After all, the point of searching and assessing is to maintain/regain SA. Back to Chameleox's OP, there's a reason that professionals don't need to incorporate this type of training: it's their habit before, during, and after gunfights. The disparity arises in non-professionals who haven't developed that habit yet. Take a look at the ratio of schools/instructors who teach mindset based-training vs those who teach method-based training; and again, between those who offer course specific to mindset vs those who only teach methods.

[TheTick]

For CQB stuff, we like to see our guys shoot the bad-guy down, leave the muzzle on him, and scan with your eyes. If a new threat emerges, then the muzzle gets driven to it. As mentioned, this helps keep from whipping the muzzle past the new target if everything was in motion. A secondary thing I like about leaving the muzzle on the downed guy while scanning with your eyes is on the outside chance he becomes a threat again. He's already done something bad enough to get shot, you may have to shoot the known threat again. Sidenote is that we do want a scan before we start the process of putting hands on the shot guy.

[echo5whiskey]

For CQB stuff, we like to see our guys shoot the bad-guy down, leave the muzzle on him, and scan with your eyes. If a new threat emerges, then the muzzle gets driven to it. As mentioned, this helps keep from whipping the muzzle past the new target if everything was in motion. A secondary thing I like about leaving the muzzle on the downed guy while scanning with your eyes is on the outside chance he becomes a threat again. He's already done something bad enough to get shot, you may have to shoot the known threat again. Sidenote is that we do want a scan before we start the process of putting hands on the shot guy.

That makes sense to me. Does your thinking change between individual and team tactics? What is your thought process when not in a CQB setting?

[Freelance]

Great point, when I learned the S&A while shooting it came with a little story that has stuck with me whenever I think about S&A and doing relaods up in your work space . It was a Marine instructor, we were discussing weapon choices during a lunch break that he used while kicking down doors in Afghanistan / Iraq and mentioned to me as point man he used a pump shotgun (590) for entries into buildings. When I asked why he told me a story of one of his squad mates who shot a combatant in the head with his M4. He looks away from the downed combatant and begins a reload from his kit while taking his eyes and weapon off the enemy. He brings his weapon down off the target to his waist line and begins the reload when he is shot by the same combatant from the ground and is now paralyzed from the neck down. Apparently his m4 round penetrated the forehead glanced around his skull and exited the back of his head without penetrating the brain bucket. Their intel guys were questioning him later that day with a bandage on his head.

[echo5whiskey]

Great point, when I learned the S&A while shooting it came with a little story that has stuck with me whenever I think about S&A and doing relaods up in your work space . It was a Marine instructor, we were discussing weapon choices during a lunch break that he used while kicking down doors in Afghanistan / Iraq and mentioned to me as point man he used a pump shotgun (590) for entries into buildings. When I asked why he told me a story of one of his squad mates who shot a combatant in the head with his M4. He looks away from the downed combatant and begins a reload from his kit while taking his eyes and weapon off the enemy. He brings his weapon down off the target to his waist line and begins the reload when he is shot by the same combatant from the ground and is now paralyzed from the neck down. Apparently his m4 round penetrated the forehead glanced around his skull and exited the back of his head without penetrating the brain bucket. Their intel guys were questioning him later that day with a bandage on his head.

That's a good story...and a reminder of the assess portion of S&A. ...which all comes back to SA. Personally, I think that situation could be better mitigated by a dead check and a disarm, than with a different weapon system, but potato-potahto. Don't get me wrong, I've made my share plus most of y'all's shares of mistakes; and it sucks that he had to learn that lesson the hard way. But this is the benefit of AARs; we can learn good lesson from others' mistakes.

[Failure2Stop]

I have little interest in performing range-kata-esque dance moves that don't serve a purpose in gaining functional skill while working repetitive exercises intended to improve mechanical functional ability.
I would argue that such actions actually negatively effect a "real" post-shooting sequence of actions, as the practitioner is simply ingraining a useless action that does not require a stimulus:response for perceived success.
Post-shooting sequences and actions are better implemented, assessed, and ingrained in simulation exercises.
I would rather use the time I have on a range to get in "good reps", and work on technical skills.

When it comes to the Post-Shooting Sequence, position of muzzle is not a fixed rule: it needs to go where it makes the most sense. Sometimes that place is at the thing that needed to be shot, sometimes that place is at a high threat location away from the last thing that got filled in, sometimes its up high or down low based on other factors; its based on the constant flow of information and circumstance, and trying to come up with a "fits all position solution" guarantees little other than at some point it will be the wrong choice.

The uniform answer is that the individual needs to be processing changes and making decisions that lead to taking appropriate actions after each shot, based on the situation and circumstance, with an end-state goal.