targets for sd/hd practice should have human shape?

All that's needed for effective defensive firearms use are marksmanship, a basic working knowledge of the human anatomy and a willingness to act under pressure. We use humanoid targets to reinforce aiming points, not to "desensitize" ourselves to killing. That's hokum. Unless you're a sociopath, you will have a moral aversion to using lethal force on someone not deserving of it. A more likely possibility is using unnecessary lethal force, based on an unreasonable fear due to a lack of training and experience.

What does work is stress innoculation. Force on force training with simunitions, edged weapons, grappling and ground fighting are good for this. So is hunting big game. Those things will teach you to manage your emotional responses and reinforce your OODA Loop.

I find his sheepdog analogy interesting and useful. Not so much the rest. I think his claims on video games are nonsense.

Mike

Couldn't the prosecutor use the fact that you practiced with human shaped targets against you in a self-defense shooting case as much as they could use hand loaded ammo and any alcohol in your blood against you?

Many people say that you should never carry hand loaded ammo in your gun and never have a single drop of alcohol if you are carrying because their theory is that a prosecutor would use it against you - I would think human shaped targets for practice would also fit that theory.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

NavyLCDR, that doesn't make very much sense to me. If you were carrying a gun in the first place, unless it's a hunting piece, it's obviously intended for (unlikely potential) use against humans. The idea that you contemplated the possibility of shooting a (threatening) person is already obvious, regardless of the shape of targets you have used.

"Human shaped" silhouette targets are standard for police training. They're standard for FBI training. They're standard for most "practical" shooting sports. They're the most normal, reasonable, and practical thing that a person preparing for SD would use.

That said, I could see problems arising from the use of particular "realistic" human targets - especially if they depicted someone from a member of a demographic group if a member of that same group ended up as the recipient of your self-defense force. Good old cardboard IPSC targets, though, or a B-27 target? I guess people can make any argument they want...

A lot of humanoid silhouette targets seem to encourage you to shoot a little on the low side. I don't think those would be very helpful for practice.

NavyLCDR,

Does your local LE agency use humanoid targets? If so, it would be exceedingly foolish of a DA to try that angle. Since you are in WA, you might want to consider using this target:

WASHINGTON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMM BLEA-2 TARGET



In my state, these are the LE targets:

I think you guys are over thinking this. To me, I know I am not shooting at a real person if it is paper regardless of whether it is a human silhouette or a circle. I will even practice with my little laserlyte cartridge in front of the tv and try and hit targets on the tv... I still know it isn't a real person. How you are going to react or how successful you will be when faced with a situation where it is a live target will (my opinion here) have nothing to do with whether you practice on a circle or a silhouette.

These days I use:

$15 for 50 of them with free shipping. Vitals are marked, but you can only see the markings up close. (heart, lungs, spine, 'cranial vault', etc are marked)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002558CS/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

...and then there is the fact that Grossman based his "work" on the thoroughly discredited SLA Marshall.

Click to expand...

You noticed that, too, did you?

It's a shame all his mother's children were retarded.

Apparently someone in our benevolent government thinks that their DHS agents and other "law enforcement officer" should be desensitized... otherwise they wouldn't have contracted for "No More Hesitation" targets.

steel horse rider said:

My point was that if you have control of your weapon good enough to hit a smaller than head size target at medium range you should be able to hit a head sized target at close range.

Click to expand...

My personal experience (military and law enforcement) has been that the skills required to hit a small target at longer ranges (breath control, precise sight alignment, smooth trigger squeeze and follow through) are not the same skills required for close range defensive encounters. Some of the worst target shooters I've ever seen were the first ones you would want next to you when the crap hits the fan. Conversely, some of the guys able to shoot out a gnat's eye at 50 yards were the last people you would want.

Nothing wrong with precision shooting, just don't be surprised when the skills don't translate into an effective response in a defensive encounter.

steel horse rider said:

I understand that with some people the panic or adrenalin factor will change things but I don't think shooting a paper silhouette of a person is a training aid against panic or excitement either.

Click to expand...

The purpose of shooting the silhouette targets in training is not to inspire panic or adrenalin (not many people scared by a piece of paper), but to train and accustom people to the degree of sight alignment and speed necessary to achieve the required hits in a defensive situation.

steel horse rider said:

Maybe you are suggesting that we shoot at live targets?

Click to expand...

Hard to get much better training than that. The military or local law enforcement would probably be glad to have you. My personal experience has been that the live targets shooting back at me very quickly demonstrated the difference between the proper application of combat shooting techniques versus target shooting techniques.

Tirod said:

It seems some terrorists did quite well flying airliners with nothing more than video gaming and a few hours in a light plane. There does seem to be some benefit.

Click to expand...

There's quite a bit of difference between flying a plane from takoff, navigating to a destination, and landing as compared to simply taking over the controls when already in flight.

ATLDave said:

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

NavyLCDR, that doesn't make very much sense to me. If you were carrying a gun in the first place, unless it's a hunting piece, it's obviously intended for (unlikely potential) use against humans. The idea that you contemplated the possibility of shooting a (threatening) person is already obvious, regardless of the shape of targets you have used.

"Human shaped" silhouette targets are standard for police training. They're standard for FBI training. They're standard for most "practical" shooting sports. They're the most normal, reasonable, and practical thing that a person preparing for SD would use.

That said, I could see problems arising from the use of particular "realistic" human targets - especially if they depicted someone from a member of a demographic group if a member of that same group ended up as the recipient of your self-defense force. Good old cardboard IPSC targets, though, or a B-27 target? I guess people can make any argument they want...

Click to expand...

Glocktogo said:

NavyLCDR,

Does your local LE agency use humanoid targets? If so, it would be exceedingly foolish of a DA to try that angle.

Click to expand...

Notice I said "theory" in my post. People claim that you should not use hand loads for self defense because the prosecutor will use it against you even though the load used is what is published in reloading manuals and performs exactly like factory ammunition. The FBI does tests on ammunition to determine what performs the best and they pick that ammo for use, but the prosecution is going to use it against the hand loader who does the same thing with their own loads.

People claim that you should not have a single beer with dinner while carrying because the prosecutor will use it againt you even though you would be perfectly within legal limits to walk out of the restaurant and get in your car and drive away.

It just seems to me that for those people who subscribe to such theories (which I do NOT subscribe to) that the prosecutor could IN THEORY, by the same standards, use the fact that you practiced with human shaped targets against you.

I think it is a just as ridiculous theory as the first two, but just saying human shaped practice targets would seem to fit into the same theory.

Apparently someone in our benevolent government thinks that their DHS agents and other "law enforcement officer" should be desensitized... otherwise they wouldn't have contracted for "No More Hesitation" targets.

Click to expand...

That's because most normal law enforcement are preconditioned (and RIGHTLY so) not to unhesitatingly gun down young children and pregnant women in their own homes. Those targets were designed to undermine the normal "these are the people we protect" conditioning, not some Grossman-esque inherent inability to harm a violent aggressor. A pregnant woman with a gun at home is more likely than not to be the homeowner who called you to the scene, not a violent aggressor. The same goes for a 7-year-old in his own home holding what looks like a gun; more often than not, it will be a toy or a BB gun, not a firearm, and there *should* be enough hesitation to assess the situation.

LE/MIL use humanoid shaped targets to train people how to shoot center-mass, not to undermine social conditioning.

If someone is trying to put a knife or bullet into me I'm going to become desensitized to killing that person mighty fast. Doesn't mean I'm desensitized to killing in general.

I think people make too much of shooting at human targets. I don't have a problem with it but I don't think it is that beneficial.

The primary benefit is teaching you how to hold -- the same reason that animal targets are useful to hunters, especially bow hunters.

Humans don't do a lot of things or like a lot of things at the first exposure. The average 6 year old boy usually doesn't have a clue about girls, either.

Driving a pedal car on the sidewalk has little relationship to racing at Willow Springs.

As our experience level rises and our goals mature, however, we approach things differently. Adults have different motivations. If a mother is defending her children, don't underestimate her rage and ability to wield any weapon she can get her hands on. She will use it to the fullest extent she can as she sees fit.

The papers are full of violence. It's a major point of contention in the gun control debate - there are a lot more deaths from the use of weapons other than guns.

How up close and personal is that?

If you are uncomfortable with anything other than paper targets, fine. Don't confuse that level of training as being capable of much more - at least not competently. The use of targets accurately depicting humans is an advanced skill, and knowing who may be an aggressor and who isn't is extremely important.

In a school shooting where a significant number of students are fleeing in the halls, do you shoot every one who came dressed Goth or Aussie traildriver that day? If you are a first responder - not somebody waiting outside for authorization - you need to determine who is a danger and who isn't.

How do you train for that? Paper bullseyes on sticks?

Again, the issue doesn't exist for professionals - they train with highly accurate depictions of human beings, because at an advanced level, you have to be sure you don't shoot the wrong person.

Otherwise, you're no better than the school shooter. And it should be an immediate clue that a lack of regard for what you are shooting at is a major issue to address as a gun owner.

Plinking at black dots is fun, but it's not where advancing levels of self defense and home defense skills are honed.

I think having a target of the approx. size of a human upper torso helps.

And basically - in most rushed SD scenarios it's point&shoot anyway. Often there is no or little time for sight alignment and well placed shots ("hey... I'm now aiming for the lungs or heart"). If the threat rushes at you from a shorter distance - you are not shooting for bragging rights but to protect yourself.

A photo realistic, armed target is the least realistic target I typically train with. After warming up on those, I move to multiple armed 3d targets that are clothed and work them with movement and odd angles.

I believe training should be as realistic as possible/practicable. The more abstract, the less direct benefit under stress. Fof simmunition with good role players is best.

Grossman is full of it, IMO/IME.

If I can hit a 12 oz soda can at 25 or 50 yards I think I will be able to use a weapon effectively in a self-defense situation.

Click to expand...

Best of luck to you, but I hope you are doing more than shooting at smallish targets to prepare yourself.

I found the silhouette targets were beneficial for my wife who struggled with accuracy when she first started shooting.. Smaller bullseye targets are less forgiving than a full size silhouette. When she saw her hits on the human shaped target it built her confidence that in a SD situation she would have struck her adversary even if it wasn't in the most optimum areas. With practice we reigned in her groups on the smaller bullseye targets.

I shoot at bullseye targets. But I aim for the heart and lungs of animals I kill. It is the same no matter what I shoot at. On game you have to shoot fast at times like in a self defense situation. I taught my recruits that what they were shooting at was just a target. With that mindset the human factor is out of it. I don't think the shape of you practice target matters. Just my 2 cents.