Training with multiple targets

[Treehopr]

Try stapling or gluing balloons to your targets.

It allows for target feedback if you don't have steel to train with.

Obviously, this has its own training scars but if you want to shoot until you "hit" its an inexpensive alternative to steel and faster than having someone call your hits.

[rickp]

I think situation will dictate how you engage each threat and with how many rounds. In a square range targets don't move so it's easy to say that one round per threat then go back and finish the job is the way to do it.

I guarantee that after shooting that first guy the rest will scatter like roaches when the lights come on. So the rest of the sequence will probably not work.

As a multiple target training drill, it's a different story. This will help in learning to move the gun from target to target, so when the threat does scatter you can effectively move the gun to engage. There's a number of ways to do this as I'm sure most here know. One just needs to make sure you lead with your eyes, then the gun follows, this will prevent you from overshooting the target with the gun and have to go back a bit to engage.

I was taught to first engage the guy that was paying or had the most attention on you, not necessarily the closest guy. I'm not sure if I still agree with that rule. Again I think situation will dictate, available cover will also dictate how you decide to engage.

The OP also asked for a way to train on multiple target when not with a partner to call them out. What I have done in the past is to get a small sony digital recorder and record a sequence of targets to engage. Then I connect the recorder to my electronic hearing protection and press play. I record them with enough time between strings to allow me to reset.
I've also used the same device for recording and practicing target ID drills with the targets that have different shapes, colors and numbers on them. Again, I record sequences with various sequences and then play them back using my Sordin hearing pro to hear it. It' works well enough for what I'm trying to do and I get to practice what I want to practice all by my lonesome.

[Uglyguns]

3) Engage each target with 1 round, then go back through with 1 additional round. Repeat until everyone stays down.

This Kinda.

Think of it like this. You’re the host of a party and you don't know how many may be in attendance and you could run short on drinks. As a gracious host you don't want to be inhospitable, so everybody gets one before anybody get two and you serve those closest to the bar first. You don't want to serve any one more then they need on the first go around and you don't want to waste drinks on anyone who many not be a heavy drinker i.e.: committed . If some one is a light weight they may only need one drink to A. realize they don't really want to get drunk B. They may be drunk after one drink and don't need any more. As we all know one drink can cause impairment and will in most cases cause a reaction in said subject.

I find that when engaging in a busy social setting like that, I prefer if at all possible hit the pelvic region. The idea is if you hit bone you are unable to progress. Tissue damage before hydrostatic shock is not a gimme and base on if they are on drugs or stimulates can not happen at all. But bones doesn’t care, it doesn’t care if you’re high as a kite and determined as hell. If you have a broken hip/leg or bullet lodged in that region you don’t move fast. We all know it is easer to hit a slower moving target then a faster one so I see it as a win/win. You are either slow and get to cover and are dealt latter or you just go down both of which you wont be doing at full speed.

I am not advocating against shooting center mass. You hit what the target gives you and as fast as you accurately can. Period. But, a lot of other things come into play when engaging multiple targets and this is what I was taught and have found to be a viable solution to a pair of armed combatants. YYMMV

V/r
Uglyguns

[rob_s]

Good post.

I think situation will dictate how you engage each threat and with how many rounds. In a square range targets don't move so it's easy to say that one round per threat then go back and finish the job is the way to do it.

I guarantee that after shooting that first guy the rest will scatter like roaches when the lights come on. So the rest of the sequence will probably not work.

As a multiple target training drill, it's a different story. This will help in learning to move the gun from target to target, so when the threat does scatter you can effectively move the gun to engage. There's a number of ways to do this as I'm sure most here know. One just needs to make sure you lead with your eyes, then the gun follows, this will prevent you from overshooting the target with the gun and have to go back a bit to engage.

I was taught to first engage the guy that was paying or had the most attention on you, not necessarily the closest guy. I'm not sure if I still agree with that rule. Again I think situation will dictate, available cover will also dictate how you decide to engage.

The OP also asked for a way to train on multiple target when not with a partner to call them out. What I have done in the past is to get a small sony digital recorder and record a sequence of targets to engage. Then I connect the recorder to my electronic hearing protection and press play. I record them with enough time between strings to allow me to reset.
I've also used the same device for recording and practicing target ID drills with the targets that have different shapes, colors and numbers on them. Again, I record sequences with various sequences and then play them back using my Sordin hearing pro to hear it. It' works well enough for what I'm trying to do and I get to practice what I want to practice all by my lonesome.

[Surf]

You train a combat shooter to be highly proficient in numerous skill sets. You put them through as many training evolutions (scenario's, drills, FoF etc) and then leave it up to them in how to deal with a situation as it unfolds in front of them. With their experience they will decide when faced with a scenario how to deal with it in the manner that they see fit. Real life situations are so fluid and dynamic that I don't think that we should dictate exactly what a shooter should do in a given situation. Of course we can suggest, outline or train as many conceivable situations, but IMO we must avoid rigid guidelines. We create thinkers who have the skills, training and experience via correct repetition to almost instinctively decide their best course of action as the situation unfolds. The best course of action may change as it unfolds. They may decide one threat at a time or they may think it might be good to spread the love quickly. Or it may change somewhere in between. Through training a shooter will understand their skills and the use of their surroundings and how people actually tend to react in an actual FoF situation. We give them the tools and leave it up to them to decide the best course of action.

Bill Jeans encourages a "non-standard response" in his training. That term has become an actual defined term by some, which then strikes me as an oxymoron (if it's a set round count, every time, isn't it then by definition "standard"?). In Bill's class you engage with a number of rounds between X and Y.

In our drills nights I encourage our shooters to "engage the target with some number of rounds until it is no longer a threat". Obviously these are cardboard targets so some amount of imagination is required. I also encourage them to utilize that imagination and begin engaging the target first and then decide, while shooting, that the target is neutralized, in contrast with those that say "shoot x number of rounds" or those that decide before the drill "I'm going to shoot this guy 5 times and that guy 7 times".

As a member of IALEFI I get a crap load of the emails with all the tons of articles that are enclosed. Hard to get to them all, but the N.S.R. has been commonly adopted and we have been using it for at least 3-4 years in our training as a defined response or N.S.R. In reality we have used something similar for many years but it now has an official acronym. Don't we just love acronyms. If I recall, I thought it was Rich Verdi who came up with this training concept. In any event, the who is not that big of a deal. It is also widely accepted with the NTOA.

However in my understanding or at least the way I have seen it done in many locations and the way we use the N.S.R. is that we define it to our students nearly the exact same way that you describe it. A student makes the determination as to how many rounds will be fired or how many rounds are needed to stop the threat. The main goal is to break the shoot 2 rounds and assess attitude that is often drilled into a shooter from a flat range and paper targets. I have heard numbers given anywhere from 3-10 rounds. Numbers are generally given as there must be some way to be expedient with drills while training. For myself I like a shooter to fire a minimum of 4 rounds but I always ask that they vary their shooting and assessments. Shoot a threat all the way to the ground if the shooter deems it necessary to stop the threat. I will also leave it up to the shooter to go ahead and assess and then re-engage if they so desire to simulate that a target once again became a threat or another threat appeared. The disadvantage to the N.S.R. is that many agencies etc, on a budget do not like it, as it can burn up more rounds and be more costly. Some trainers do not like it because they like their nice and neat drills with prescribed round counts as N.S.R.'s will have people ending drills sooner than others.

For myself, I think there is great value in drills that call for a prescribed number of rounds when teaching specific skill sets, however for an individual training for a potential defensive situation the N.S.R. or whatever you call it type of training or more so the mindset that goes along with it is extremely important.

[eo500]

Thanks everyone, there's lots of good ideas in this thread. I think it all boils down to common sense and the idea of training using a wide variety of drills to develop a wide variety of skills. Thanks again.

[JSantoro]

I'd be curious and appreciative to hear comments regarding the part distance plays in sequence and number of rounds-on-target.
For example, if one target is 2 yards and the other 15 yards.
Also, in regard to type of weapon; e.g knife, handgun, long gun

I can't be sure how well this fits in with more type-specific small-arms stuff, but I've always liked the method for judging threats that I learned running a 25mm chain gun. It speaks primarily to vehicle threats, but I think it works well as a primer for how to simplify and thereby speed up threat assments, because you still have to observe, orient, decide, and act, all based on initial observations and what they told you about the nature or capabilities of the threat(s).

In it's most thumbnail version, it goes like this:

Most Dangerous = Can see you and is capable of killing you.

Dangerous = Capable of killing you, but can't see/hit you (oooo...you can see the grey areas building like stormclouds, can't you?)

Least Dangerous = Can't see/hit you, couldn't kill you if he could, but still a viable target if it's capable of doing anybody else some damage.

Keeping the waters less muddied than they'd otherwise be by ignoring mover/stationary considerations (since we're talking about a static range), closer generally keeps a target more likely in the Most Dangerous category. There's modifiers, of course.

Presented w/a dude with carbine @ 50m and another with a pistol @ 75m, distance is more likely secondary to adversarial capability. Each can see you and CAN kill you, but you'd have a helluva story to tell about why you went after the pistol-wielder first, presuming you survive.

# of rounds on target? Sticking to the above, whatever it takes to get the first guy to crumple so I can go after the 2nd, and then make a thorough assessment afterwards for possible further action. If the ultimate worry is having to answer the question "Why'd you shoot him 8 times?" the answer is a variation of "Because 7 was clearly not enough, 9 was clearly extracurricular, I had other guests to see to and didn't want to appear rude."

[rickp]

Presented w/a dude with carbine @ 50m and another with a pistol @ 75m, distance is more likely secondary to adversarial capability. Each can see you and CAN kill you, but you'd have a helluva story to tell about why you went after the pistol-wielder first, presuming you survive."

I agree with what you're trying to communicate here and I would normally agree, but this can be a bit of a tricky situation and the guy with the biggest gun doesn't always win you're attention first. Like I said, situation will dictate how things develop.

Maybe the guy with the pistol is the guy paying the most attention to you, and might deserve your more immediate attention as opposed to the guy with the long gun who might be focused on something else.

As with most things in this business it's nearly impossible to say "first I'll do this, then I'll do that"

R.

[JSantoro]

Yep. The "D" in OODA stands for "decide," after all.

[6933]

The best way to train with multiple targets would be to mix it up so that you don't get into a pattern of engaging. As far as which BG to engage first, it would be situationally dependent. Three BG's, slightly staggered, the one "up front" looks hesitant, second guy looks like he's primed and poised, third guy most distant looks like he's waiting for one of his partners to go first. In this situation I would not shoot the closest but the second BG that looks like the greatest threat. I may not be explaining it perfectly, but hopefully the point gets across. "Reading" the situation and the BG's would be more important than automatically shooting the closest.