Grouping

[joe yang]

Annual handgun qualification looms large. I'm not in the expert class. Does anyone even rate shooters anymore? However, I'm pretty good. I approach shooting like any other martial art. I train hard and keep getting better.

So here's the point, somebody out of the dozen or so constables I requal with, who probably won't shoot as well, is bound to comment on my groupings. Thing is, the guy will probably have a lot more time and money tied up in shooting than me. He's going to advise me to spread my shots around a little more, you know, to increase the damage.

I'm going to keep my mouth shut, as usual. Anyone else see the fallacy of this "strategy". It seems to be "flavor of the month".

Just getting this off my chest now, so it doesn't interfer with my relaxation and concentration. Isn't that the real secret to shooting well? Take your time and stay cool.

[Joseph Svinth]

"It isn't being fast, it's whether or not you're willing."
-- John Bernard Books, in Glendon Swarthout, "The Shootist"

[Kit LeBlanc]

You MUST be joking. I wouldn't know how to keep a straight face!!

Try telling him "if you would look at your sights, and stop looking at your target, you could put all of yours in a nice ragged hole in the center of your target, too!"

[joe yang]

When you are sharing "strategy/tactics" with a loose canon/cowboy like most of us constables, keeping a straight face is a priority.

[kenjgood]

Hey Kit….

O.K. I will be the resident whipping boy…

Tell me why I should put 5 shots in one hole in a combative situation?

Keep in mind, I am not saying you should not have the capability to hit what you want, when you want.

I await your profound wisdom…

[Dan Harden]

I will let you experienced gentlemen discuss your own individual fields of endeavor but I have a question. Wouldn't you say LEO, have a substantially different role in maintaining target acquisition than in warfare?
I would naturally assume that their mission environs whilst being “shot at” would be drastically different then any combat role. With the accompanying public pressure and policies I would imagine that the smaller the groupings the better. Considering the small amount of time that LEO's spend in honing their shooting skills wouldn’t targeting be more paramount? And considering that gun use plays such a highly reduced role in their careers it is probably reasonable that they spend their time doing other things. Considering that they have to play out their roles in the public sector, both myself and any other bystanders or involuntary participants would probably be thankful if they could hit what they aimed at and not "spread things around a bit."

I realize that both venues may be increasingly pressured by the presence of non-combatants, and the artificial requirements to be all things to all men, be perfect and let everyone go home alive- but I would also assume the soldier would be granted more leeway over an LEO in accomplishing is mission and breaking a few eggs.


And Ken
Looking at your sights VS looking at your target? While that is good for one thing, doesn't that compromise others in a "shoot and run" pressured environment? Wouldn't you say there are times for laying down a broader suppressing field of fire?

Again, all I have to offer are questions…… and Ken, I would (seriously) await both of your opinions and " profound wisdom" on this subject.
ya smartass :)

Dan

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by kenjgood
Hey Kit….

O.K. I will be the resident whipping boy…

Tell me why I should put 5 shots in one hole in a combative situation?

Keep in mind, I am not saying you should not have the capability to hit what you want, when you want.

I await your profound wisdom…

Well, my wisdom in this area is hardly profound. I consider myself very much a schoolboy on the way to school. Since some of the guys I am in awe of speak in those terms about YOU, Ken, I don't think there is anything I can contribute but my own way of looking at it, and you can correct me where I am going astray.

I think it depends on what we are training. I read Joe's post picturing not a high speed shooter who is intentionally "spreading them around," or even practicing flash sight picture or shooting without sights in a combat course, and so not keyholing his rounds, but rather a high drag, low speed kinda guy who CAN'T put his shots where he wants them and is rationalizing.

Anyway, range quals are to me about practicing and reinforcing putting them where you want them. Sight alignment, stance, grip, trigger and breathing.... confirmed by that ragged hole. I think of qualifications as not being combative but a check of where I am at in terms of these basics, from shot to shot or group to group...like basic kata being about body angles, hip positioning, blade positioning, etc. (Of course, after practicing combat shooting, trying to shoot faster and faster with an acceptable spread on the target I tend to do that automatically in quals...curses!!!)

Training for combat shooting would be different. Getting decent hits in a fairly loose pattern center mass is generally what happens in Sim f/x training, for example, because I do think of it as being training more for combative action. I wouldn't try to get them all in one hole, as long as they were close enough together to both hit and do some damage is what I want. It is a different training modality all together. Sights may not be seen or even attempted at close range, and don't need to be IF you have ingrained enough of that body alignment with the muzzle through marksmanship training.

Okay, Teach, whattaya say?

[joe yang]

Sorry Mr. Good, I wasn't refering to combat, but qualification. As Mr. LeBlanc suggested.

Under pressure, in combat, moving, you're target moving, nothing works the way it did on the range. You're groupings will be plenty loose enough. That said, I like to shoot paper to get the smallest, tightest group I can shoot, most of the time.

[kenjgood]

I am no world-class pistolero on the range but I do spend quite a bit of time in the Force-on-Force environment, dealing with the dynamic of human sized targets that think, move, and shoot back. It is always, always a humbling experience.

Joe, if you plan on moving and shooting against moving and shooting targets, but limit your range practice only to, static\accurate fire then you may find yourself a bit short of tools in an actual confrontation.

I am not saying exclude this type of training, I am saying add to it.

As Kit has pointed out, look at static range practice as “kata”. Movement, sequences, drills designed to teach you the form and hopefully reveal principles that can be used in the dynamic flow of combat. Start slow and build fluidity.

Moving and shooting, sliding, vertical and horizontally displacing, “working” a corner around a barricade, etc. can be considered “shadow boxing”. You are adding a few more components of an actual fight.

Force-on-Force training where all participants have training weapons that simulate some of the timings and rhythms of a fight can be considered “sparring”.

None of these training methodologies will substitute for combat, they all have their pluses and minuses, but all build the foundation from which one could reasonably expect to have success in actual combat.

My $.02.

My first formal pistol course was a Gunsite 250 course (their basic course). I enjoyed it and learned many excellent concepts and skills. That was 1981.

About the same time I started competing in local IPSC matches and various “combat” matches. I noted that as I was intensely concentrating on my front sight and getting tight, center of mass “A” zone hits, that competitors where delivering shots in the “A” at 2-1, 3-1 ratios. I also noted, that my overall situational awareness during this type of concentration was diminished.

My take on it, is that you are always balancing speed and accuracy, an insight on the obvious!

As I thought more about this 2-1, 3-1 ratios, I changed my practice sessions to include some “letting go” and letting it rip.

I used a .22 Ace conversion kit on my 1911 and started going to work.

100-150 rounds super slow motion
Conscious control of biomechanics, extremely accurate hits, long, long follow-through analysis and corrections

100-150 rounds slow
Awareness of mechanics, accurate hits, follow-through

100-150 rounds fast or hyper fast
Disregard any conscious control of mechanics; force myself to go faster than I wanted to, don’t worry about grouping or perfect shot placement.

Finish with 100-200 rounds at what I called “race pace” or “combative pace” using duty or factory ammunition. The goal here was to find that balance point, where I was a delivering shots as fast as I could consistently place rounds in the designated target area. Sometimes I would put a 1” sticker up, sometimes it would be a pie plate, or sometimes I would trace out a 4” wide, vertical column that represented the “life line” of the human body. Anything on that column, I considered an acceptable hit.

What I found is that changing the speed levels, accuracy levels, target sizes and distaces through out practice sessions, allowed me to break through my preconceived ideas and patterns of how fast and accurate I could shoot.

I would also break up the drills often.

1 shot draws, pairs same target/different targets, 3-shots-3 targets in a horizon plane, 3-shots-3 targets vertical plane, diagonals, single hand, two hand, left, right, standing, knelling, prone, stationary, moving, etc. There is plenty of variation to keep things out of the “this is the way I will find myself shooting mode”, when in fact you will probably end up engaging someone from some strange position, angle or timing.

As with anything else these are perishable skills.

Not on the range=slower and less accurate.

On the range with proper training habits= faster and more accurate with less conscious effort and physical friction.

Kit: I would say that firearms training in general separates the “modality” too much. Train on the range, train in FOF, then go back to the range and modify what you are doing based on the fights encountered. This is after you have your “kata” down.

All this being said, it is my opinion that being able to shoot your weapons fast and accurate represent 10-15% of the skill set that will allow you to consistent beat opponents in a projectile-based fight.

[kenjgood]

Originally posted by Dan Harden
Wouldn't you say LEO, have a substantially different role in maintaining target acquisition than in warfare?
I would naturally assume that their mission environs whilst being “shot at” would be drastically different then any combat role. With the accompanying public pressure and policies I would imagine that the smaller the groupings the better. Considering the small amount of time that LEO's spend in honing their shooting skills wouldn’t targeting be more paramount? And considering that gun use plays such a highly reduced role in their careers it is probably reasonable that they spend their time doing other things. Considering that they have to play out their roles in the public sector, both myself and any other bystanders or involuntary participants would probably be thankful if they could hit what they aimed at and not "spread things around a bit."

I realize that both venues may be increasingly pressured by the presence of non-combatants, and the artificial requirements to be all things to all men, be perfect and let everyone go home alive- but I would also assume the soldier would be granted more leeway over an LEO in accomplishing is mission and breaking a few eggs.


And Ken
Looking at your sights VS looking at your target? While that is good for one thing, doesn't that compromise others in a "shoot and run" pressured environment? Wouldn't you say there are times for laying down a broader suppressing field of fire?

Again, all I have to offer are questions…… and Ken, I would (seriously) await both of your opinions and " profound wisdom" on this subject.
ya smartass :)

Dan

Patrol LEO street confrontation and full-blown small unit warfare have this in common, bullets are coming out of the barrel….

Obviously the military operator is emitting much more energy and in many cases cannot even see the opponent. I carried a belt-fed 5.56mm machinegun and buzzed along at nearly 1100 round per minute. If you were inside my visual sight radius, chances are you would get some attention fairly quickly. Getting my opponents head down was a primary objective, so that elements could maneuver unseen to finish. Closing down and controlling fields of fire through volume of fire and ordnance was the way.

LEO don’t typically field these type of weapons or use these type of tactics. As you have already noted, secondary/non-combatants targets can be all over the place. We can all pull up new stories on police shootings that resulted in bystanders getting maimed, crippled and killed.…not a good thing in anybody’s book. Therefore spot-on accuracy is required.

BUT, as you noted, there are plenty of police officers that do not train enough with their weapon systems. In order to be accurate under duress you must train, train, train. What I see happening is, as soon as the proverbial sh#$%t hits the fan; most will revert to the path of least resistance, speed!!! The results are dismal. I believe 80-85% of rounds fired at less than 20 feet (usually within 10) do not hit the target anywhere. Some departments are much better than this, but this is the national average.

As far as sights VS no sights, all my shots are aimed. Sometimes I visually verify my skeletal alignment with my sights or optics, many times I do not. In close quarters, I typically don’t waste the time to verify this alignment, I already know it’s there.

How did I develop proper consistent skeletal alignment? By using the visual feedback loop provide by the sighting system. That “feels” right, I can verify that “feel” with my eyes and an angular measuring device, the sights.

The common ground of military and LEO shooting situations:

Military units are finding themselves in urban environments that have both shoot and no-shoot targets. They are training hard and often to operate inside structures where they may have separated friendly elements. The spray and pray method doesn’t bode well in the type of environment. Therefore, well-placed, accurate fire is of premium value.

[joe yang]

Thanks all, but again, everyone is reading more into my initial post than I had intended. I really only was referencing annual requals, nothing more or less. I always get a little edgy here. Standing on a firing line with a dozen or so guys I don't know can get pretty tense. Remember, I'm talking PA State Constables here. It gets scarry.

I train long and hard, under various conditions. I like to shoot and shoot well. Then I get some shakey guy covering half the firingline when he draws, or shooting a $2000 Colt 1911A, or wearing tactical gloves, telling me I need to "break up" my grouping a little, cause he can't shoot as well. I just want to get a high score and go home. ;)

[Kit LeBlanc]

Thanks Ken, good info...

Allows us to see where we are at shooting wise, too. I have a lot of rounds to shoot!!!

[Dan Harden]

Speaking of lots of rounds, what do ya 'all use for handguns?
I have the P226 and P220. I have well upwards of 8,000 rounds through the 226 some what less through the 45. They just keep going, straight and true.

I have never been more satisfied with a handgun.

Dan

[Kit LeBlanc]

Carried both the Sigs, but now the HK USP .45.

Sweet.....

[kenjgood]

Concealed carry: 2 S&W Model 640's - .357 mags
No fuss no muss. In winter one in each jacket pocket. Shoot right through the jacket, hands on and pointing without the threat(s) being aware.

Home Defence: Ruger GP100, no magazines to fall. Don't have to worry about storing rounds for extended lengths of time in the magazine. BTW I just read a report from the boyz in Afghanastan who were complaining exactly about this issue. Rounds were falling out of their magazines due to spring compression problems. Beretta 9mm.

Smith & Wesson autos fell boxy, edging and nose heavy in my hands and I have sold all mine after quite a bit of experimentation.

Tactical rig: Either a. 45 cal Combat Government 1911 with reliability mods and a few titanium parts or a Sig 226 with 20 round mags. Love them both.

Working on smoothing out a Browning High Power. The thing points like a laser for me.

Sold my H&K .45 USP as it felt like a crew served weapon....sorry Kit....then again I am a big baby and had difficulty holding the thing up and keeping my balance during the wild ride of slide movement caused by the high bore axis!!! :laugh:

A lot of folks love Glocks for their simplicity, price and ease of use. I personally stay away from Glocks because I have seen more than one blow up in buddies hands. The first one was the result of the individual double charging his reloads (.45 cal). But, I have done the same thing on more than one occasion shooting 1911's, with no ill effect but a few raised eyebrows. The second case was a stock weapon using factory ammo.

I personally could care less what caliber I am shooting in the 9mm - .45 cal range. From everything I can gather the percentages indicate that they all hover around the same area of statisitics chart in terms of 1 stop shots and stops period.

I have talked to folks and read many reports of shots to the head, 12 gauge shugs center of mass, 12 rounds of 5.56mm in the back, etc. and that individual functioned for X amount of time and in many cases survived. I have spoken with Viet Nam vets who dumped full magaziness into the enemy, blood everywhere, only to watch them run off. Therefore, I don't expect my handgun to do anything in particular. Rounds on target may or may not immediatly stop the attack, so in my mind I am constantly preparing for that reality.

Respectfully,

Ken J. Good

[George Ledyard]

Hi all!
I think that this set of posts, while quite interesting and valid, does point out one very important issue. There is a huge gap between those of you who are serious professionals and the regular guys who make their livings doing Law Enforcement and Security work. Most of you guys have resumes a mile long, are instructor qualified in everything under the sun and seek to perfect yourselves in these areas.

This of course puts a huge gap between you and the average officer, who trains as little as possible, shoots the minimum necessary to qualify. Doesn't ever seek training at his own time and expense and more often than not suddenly develops a minor injury just when in-service training does occur.

For this average officer, I think the very best training experience you can give him is some sort of scenario training which simulates the type of conditions under which he is most likely to need to deploy his firearm. Since most LE involved shootings are at 6 - 8 feet in low light conditions this training does not need to focus on marksmanship.

Peyton Quinn in his book on Adrenaline Stress Conditioning talked about an experiment that they ran in which he took four or so shooters (typical range shooters, not guys like all of you) and had them go up against an armed armored assailant (they used simunition or some equivalent). They then took an equal number of people who had never shot a gun in their lives but who had completed his basic unarmed weekend course.

Because of the realistic nature of this type of training they can usually get people excited enough to get a real adrenaline dump and experience the symptoms associated with that type of stress. In his experiment he found that none of the shooters were able to get a bullet on center mass, one dropped his gun trying to access it, and another never cleared leather before the attacker (armed with a machete I believe) was on him.

Of the folks who had never shot before 4 out of 5 hit center mass and the one that didn't hit the weapons delivery arm and they felt he would have survived.

So I think this points out that for preparing the average officer for a deadly force encounter the best thing you can do is give him training which helps him develop the ability to function after the adrenaline dump that comes with recognition that "this is it". Also, since the distance in most shootings is very close, I believe that integrated use of force training which focuses on when to attempt access the firearm and when to use empty hand impact techniques before attempting to draw he weapon is very important.

If you look at the Amadou Diallo (Sp?) case in NYC, you had four officers all on a porch and front stairs when the subject, who was at his front door, was perceived to be drawing a weapon. At that range, if anyone had moved in to strike him as his hand disappeared he would still be alive today. As it was the four officers fired forty shots and hit the subject 24 or so times. One of the officers was firing as he fell backwards down the stairs and was just lucky that he didn't hit one of his fellows.

Anyway, just my thoughts on what is most important for the average guy. We run into the same thing on our DT training where we have a pretty sophisticated low level force program. The students who have been with me for years have worked with me to develop a very program 90 % of which we will never teach to any agency personnel as they will never train enough to get to the point at which they are ready for that level. So we distill it down to the most simplistic stuff that can be taught in a few hours and hope that it may do some good.

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by George Ledyard
Hi all!
I think that this set of posts, while quite interesting and valid, does point out one very important issue. There is a huge gap between those of you who are serious professionals and the regular guys who make their livings doing Law Enforcement and Security work. Most of you guys have resumes a mile long, are instructor qualified in everything under the sun and seek to perfect yourselves in these areas.

This of course puts a huge gap between you and the average officer, who trains as little as possible, shoots the minimum necessary to qualify. Doesn't ever seek training at his own time and expense and more often than not suddenly develops a minor injury just when in-service training does occur.

For this average officer, I think the very best training experience you can give him is some sort of scenario training which simulates the type of conditions under which he is most likely to need to deploy his firearm. Since most LE involved shootings are at 6 - 8 feet in low light conditions this training does not need to focus on marksmanship.

Peyton Quinn in his book on Adrenaline Stress Conditioning talked about an experiment that they ran in which he took four or so shooters (typical range shooters, not guys like all of you) and had them go up against an armed armored assailant (they used simunition or some equivalent). They then took an equal number of people who had never shot a gun in their lives but who had completed his basic unarmed weekend course.

Because of the realistic nature of this type of training they can usually get people excited enough to get a real adrenaline dump and experience the symptoms associated with that type of stress. In his experiment he found that none of the shooters were able to get a bullet on center mass, one dropped his gun trying to access it, and another never cleared leather before the attacker (armed with a machete I believe) was on him.

Of the folks who had never shot before 4 out of 5 hit center mass and the one that didn't hit the weapons delivery arm and they felt he would have survived.

So I think this points out that for preparing the average officer for a deadly force encounter the best thing you can do is give him training which helps him develop the ability to function after the adrenaline dump that comes with recognition that "this is it". Also, since the distance in most shootings is very close, I believe that integrated use of force training which focuses on when to attempt access the firearm and when to use empty hand impact techniques before attempting to draw he weapon is very important.

If you look at the Amadou Diallo (Sp?) case in NYC, you had four officers all on a porch and front stairs when the subject, who was at his front door, was perceived to be drawing a weapon. At that range, if anyone had moved in to strike him as his hand disappeared he would still be alive today. As it was the four officers fired forty shots and hit the subject 24 or so times. One of the officers was firing as he fell backwards down the stairs and was just lucky that he didn't hit one of his fellows.

Anyway, just my thoughts on what is most important for the average guy. We run into the same thing on our DT training where we have a pretty sophisticated low level force program. The students who have been with me for years have worked with me to develop a very program 90 % of which we will never teach to any agency personnel as they will never train enough to get to the point at which they are ready for that level. So we distill it down to the most simplistic stuff that can be taught in a few hours and hope that it may do some good.

George,

You make some good points. I think that is what we are getting at. Range training has its place and enforces the basics of skeletal/sight alignment, but force on force scenario training is where the rubber meets the road (or the detergent meets the flesh, as it were...) and where your "non-trainer" officers will really be tested, and really learn.

Our agency now simply orders the one or two people who are not interested in FOF training to attend. They do, and I daresay one of them has had some positive training experiences, though he would probably never admit it.

We are finding that more of an outcome based training with more of a FOF component, followed closely by FOF scenario training is what is working for us. After undergoing a cycle of this kind of instruction, it seems that the officers that don't train are retaining more of what they were taught and are better able to pull it out during a resistive scenario.

Not sure on the Diallo thing. What range were they at in terms of feet? Also, the dynamic of a situation changes with multiple officers, with weapons drawn, present. I don't know enough about the specifics in that case, though these are what immediately come to mind, though a lot more questions come up as well.

We just went through a weapon response scenario at contact distance that was interesting for the "gun first" guys. The remediation was very effective and several were able to respond with an unarmed vs. firearm control. Some followed it with shooting, others didn't need to.