History of the Mozambique Drill

[Fred Fuller]

We had some discussion on this a few threads ago, and I was re-reading some Cooper this morning and ran across this. I wanted to add it to the record here at ST&T, for the elucidation of any who might be unfamiliar with the term and its origin.

For anyone who wants to read more, the web collection of Jeff Cooper's Commentaries can be found at http://myweb.cebridge.net/mkeithr/Jeff/, and a couple of other places.
================================================

http://myweb.cebridge.net/mkeithr/Jeff/jeff1_1.html

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Previously Gunsite Gossip
Vol. 1, No. 1
June 1993

snip///
As time passes we discover that there are a good many readers who have not been to school and who are puzzled by our reference to "The Mozambique Drill."

I added The Mozambique Drill to the modern doctrine after hearing of an experience of a student of mine up in Mozambique when that country was abandoned. My friend was involved in the fighting that took place around the airport of Laurenco Marquez. At one point, Mike turned a corner was confronted by a terrorist carrying an AK47. The man was advancing toward him at a walk at a range of perhaps 10 paces. Mike, who was a good shot, came up with his P35 and planted two satisfactory hits, one on each side of the wishbone. He expected his adversary to drop, but nothing happened, and the man continued to close the range. At this point, our boy quite sensibly opted to go for the head and tried to do so, but he was a little bit upset by this time and mashed slightly on the trigger, catching the terrorist precisely between the collar bones and severing his spinal cord. This stopped the fight.

Upon analysis, it seemed to me that the pistolero should be accustomed to the idea of placing two shots amidships as fast as he can and then being prepared to change his point of aim if this achieves no results. Two shots amidships can be placed very quickly and very reliably and they will nearly always stop the fight providing a major-caliber pistol is used and the subject is not wearing body armor. However, simply chanting "two in the body, one in the head" oversimplifies matters, since it takes considerably longer to be absolutely sure of a head shot than it does to be quite sure of two shots in the thorax. The problem for the shooter is to change his pace, going just as fast as he can with his first pair, then, pausing to observe results or lack thereof, he must slow down and shoot precisely. This is not easy to do. The beginner tends to fire all three shots at the same speed, which is either too slow for the body shots or too fast for the head shot. This change of pace calls for concentration and coordination which can only be developed through practice.

Mike Rouseau was later killed in action in the Rhodesian War. May he rest in peace!
snip///

 

[conw]

Good post. I find that longer strings prior to the transition, at least for those carrying higher-capacity handguns, are beneficial.

Also, I like some of the modern iterations of it; Tom Givens is all about transitions from large to small points of aim and their requirements regarding pacing/cadence, and vice-versa. I haven't really had much handgun training with other people besides Tom but I don't think - from hearing students discuss their experiences - that other instructors emphasize this as much, as early. It's a hugely important skill and very cognitive in nature, and doesn't come naturally, especially to people who always just blast the torso at 5 yards at the range or whatever then call it a day.

 

[lemaymiami]

thanks Fred, I'd often heard of the "Mozambique drill" but never seen it discussed by someone that I greatly respect. Wish I'd been fortunate enough to train under Cooper.

Taking that topic a bit forward to today's world where the possibility of seriously armored suicidal dead enders is something that will keep a young cop awake at night... My advice to them was brief and (I believe) terribly practical.... If you're confronted by an armored adversary (torso strikes not effective) then go for their feet. Take your opponent's feet and you can at least out maneuver him/her. Anyone watching that California bank robbery tape where both subjects were armored will quickly see that the equation would change dramatically if the officers aimed at what they COULD hit... once they knew that body armor was involved.... We also discussed use of a patrol car as a better weapon in some circumstances than any firearm - but that's not for this forum.

 

[Skribs]

So in other words, instead of the pop pop pop most people assume with a "triple tap", this is a quick pop-pop, aim, pop which is designed to hopefully stop the threat quickly, and if not then stop him/her good?

Makes sense.

 

[conw]

The reason I don't like "double tap" is because it may take more than two shots to stop the threat even without body armor. Plus I've heard people coach others to just squeeze the trigger twice then visually check the target. By the time they have completed that task a decent shooter could have gotten off 5-8 shots easily, and in a smaller group.

In reality 2 isn't enough to assess the target and then merit a shift in strategy.

I do think 2 to a big target, 1 to a little target's good in practice sessions... but I believe in mixing it up. 2 and 2, 3 and 2, 5 and 2, 5 and 5... big to small, small to big... it's not just about how fast you can do 2 then 1; that's counterproductive for shooting skill and doesn't really mimic the ability to deliver accurate fire, assess, and change strategy.

Something like this is a great training tool. You can construct endless drills that combine cognition with speed, making it a less rote activity. And, importantly, you are transitioning between targets and going from small to large and quite possibly back again to a similar sized target.

You could do this - partner calls out a number OR a color (some have different shapes, too)... from there you put X rounds in that target (2 if it's "2," 3 if it's "3," etc), then the same number in the small and the large target and the head. Or do +1 (2 in the 2-circle, 3 in the torso, 4 in the head, 5 to the little silhouette). You can flip the order around, create extended sequences, etc. Work it from the holster, low ready, high index, etc etc etc... change distance...

This is also a great way to work reloads since you tend to not anticipate the slidelock and are forced to react.


This makes shooting less of a parlor trick and, IMO, builds in some cognitive capacity along with the rote skill. Plus it's just a fun way to train and you will get a lot more growth if you can use your fundamentals in a cognitively-demanding setting.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Please keep in mind - the Mozambique Drill was a relatively long time ago, and also far far away in many respects other than just geography.

Louis Awerbuck says "The state of the art is a moving target." If we were still where we were in 1993, as far as the state of the art is concerned, Louis would have only been on the road as an itinerant trainer for a few years, having departed his role as Rangemaster and Shooting Master at Gunsite in 1987 (http://www.yfainc.com/). And I'd have yet to get my first class with him .

 

[Skribs]

Conwict, that sounds like the advanced rifleman course in Americas Army 3. You have two steel targets, each with 3 shapes (for head, chest, and pelvis). There is a square, a circle, and a triangle, one red, one blue, and one yellow. The drill sergeant will yell two colors or two shapes (i.e. "red, yellow" or "square, triangle") and you have to hit the red twice on one target, yellow twice on the other (although you could pick whether you go left-right or right-left).

 

[scaatylobo]

New names,same drill

The drill is now referred to as a "fail to stop" or "body armor drill".

I still do it with three shot drill,and still teach it.

I do realize that it might take more than 2 or 3 well placed shots [ assume they were well placed just for this missive ].

But the action of taking 2 FAST and accurate center of mass shots,then follow by working up the torso to the head.

Of course taking the head shot fast,if its offered.

I do not get stuck in the 2 or 3 shot game,its a training drill and as such it has no boundaries except safety.

 

[45_auto]

The Mozambique drill (two to the body, one to the head) is a great technique for HIGHLY TRAINED, COMPETENT operators. For normal people it's a great technique to strive for in classes at standing-still paper targets. If you actually have to use your gun, you'll find that in the real world 99.9% of the time, the reason that the first 2 shots don't stop someone is because you missed. Trying to go for a head shot means that you just took a long time to miss again.

Very few people are willing to make the investment in training and practice (lots of both) to become proficient enough to make this technique a valid option for self defense. The best technique to train for (unless you're dedicated enough to make it through a least a couple of levels of classes equivelent to Gunsite) is center of mass until the threat is stopped. In reality, the "Bill Drill" is much more realistic and useful than the "Mozambique". If you don't know what the "Bill Drill" is then you really need to get some training.

It's great to think about and practice making the head shot or foot shot to take out an aggressor wearing body armor on the range. Most realistic, least painful way to find out what it's like with stuff coming back at you is Simunitions. It's always funny to watch the guys try for the "golden BB" shot. It's very seldom effective.

 

[scaatylobo]

@ 45 auto

Sorry but I disagree.

The "Bill drill" will not stop a body armor wearer.

So if you dump 6 rounds [ if you are shooting a revolver,your most likely empty ] and then its a FTS situation = your either dead of VERY sorry.

And if you do spend the time to fire 6 rounds and they have little or no effect,then your behind the '8' ball.

I shoot and train a few in the FTS drill and at close range the 2 to the chest and at LEAST one to the upper torso and then finish at the head - doable.

I see no need to practice this drill at 25 yards with a handgun,I do but dont try to teach it to most.That requires a great deal of skill and pressure under fire.

I do induce as much 'stress fire' as possible and yes to incoming softair rounds too,paintball now has a ball that does not 'splatter' and it hurts and is very distracting too.

I also teach and train that a pelvis and a ankle shot [ if at all possible ] will drop a threat IF the head is not available/visible.

Another point I must make is that teaching and training to take these shot's under the pressure of incoming rounds cannot be stressed enough.

The same as being charged by a knife attacker,you do not have the luxury of turning your back to an attacker.

Visualization and training [ while shooting ] might be all that will save you.

 

[45_auto]

Your call, train as you think is best. At the very worst it's better than nothing, which is what the vast majority posters have! A lot depends on the category of shooter we're talking about.

My experience has been that only a very few people are capable of consistently putting 2 shots to the A-zone. Go to an IDPA or IPSC match for proof. And these are people that are at least interested enough to try to validate their proficiency with a pistol. The vast majority are much better served by shooting at the largest target (COM) they have available.

The typical internet commando who has never had a training class and shoots once or twice a month is dreaming if he thinks he's going to be processing information fast enough to transition to a head shot in a shooting incident. Kind of like thinking you're qualified to play at Wimbledon if you play some tennis once a week or so, or play at the Master's if you play golf with your buddies every once in a while.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Mozambique drill (two to the body, one to the head) is a great technique for HIGHLY TRAINED, COMPETENT operators. For normal people it's a great technique to strive for in classes at standing-still paper targets.

LOL, I know two non-operators who have used it successfully, but to each his own.

As for normal people. No normal people get enough training. Most normal people own guns for self defense that have been shot so little that the blueing is still in the breechface. The don't train even if they do manage to go to a class beyond gun safety or CCW and even then won't train afterwards.

You are right in that most people are best served by trying for COM shots, but most people don't even know the particular make and model of ammo in their guns either. "Most people" is like the lowest common demoninator where the LCD looks nothing like folks who actually practice with their guns.

Heck, the local range has like 40 regular hunters and 400 opening day deer hunters who shoot their deer rifle 5 shots a year and 1 is to verify zero (you don't want to waste ammo), 10 times if they are a bad hunter.




If you actually have to use your gun, you'll find that in the real world 99.9% of the time, the reason that the first 2 shots don't stop someone is because you missed. Trying to go for a head shot means that you just took a long time to miss again.

Very few people are willing to make the investment in training and practice (lots of both) to become proficient enough to make this technique a valid option for self defense. The best technique to train for (unless you're dedicated enough to make it through a least a couple of levels of classes equivelent to Gunsite) is center of mass until the threat is stopped. In reality, the "Bill Drill" is much more realistic and useful than the "Mozambique". If you don't know what the "Bill Drill" is then you really need to get some training.

It's great to think about and practice making the head shot or foot shot to take out an aggressor wearing body armor on the range. Most realistic, least painful way to find out what it's like with stuff coming back at you is Simunitions. It's always funny to watch the guys try for the "golden BB" shot. It's very seldom effective.

 

[scaatylobo]

As you like

Believe as y'all like.

I trained LEO's and they were THE worst at knowing the gun they carried or how to clean it and then re-assemble it.

I shoot now with civilians and they are MUCH more aware of their tools and the use and limitations.

They dont hesitate to shoot 'impossible shots' and then keep trying till they can.

The LEO's are 95% not shooting unless forced to qual.

As a civilian now myself,I am shooting more as I know that if forced to use a gun - I will be on the news and have no agency to back me.

I see the citizens that I shoot with as at least as good as the LEO's and some even better.

btw,to any who wonder about real world shoots,one of our firearm instructors was fired upon as he walked up to a home invasion [ call was "unwanted person" ] and when the perps opened up with 2 shotguns the LEO ran at them firing with one hand on his S&W .40 cal.

He hit 2 of the 3 perps and I found that one DRT a 1/2 block away,the other took a round in the butt and its still in there.

Under real STRESS you 'might' not look like a day at the range.

 

[X-Rap]

I believe there are generally two basic conditions in most shootings. One is immediate action in which you must draw and fire at one or more adversaries and quickly evaluate a threat continuum. Who gets shot and the number of rounds will have to be deliberated quickly with as much accuracy as one can muster to survive.
The other and probably the lesser to be encountered will be at a distance and require very deliberate and accurate fire such as that which could have been put to good use in the famous CA bank robbery in which the robbers were well covered in body armour.
An ankle shot in the first example would be foolish but in the second, say across the street while shooting under a car or other good cover might be what brings a gunman down.
The first one will likely see you shot if the bad guy has a gun in hand or there are more than one of them unless you are one BA at shooting on the move heading to cover.
The Mozambique is good as a test of speed and accuracy but IMO in real life might get you shot at the minimum if you execute as designed.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Conwict, that sounds like the advanced rifleman course in Americas Army 3. You have two steel targets, each with 3 shapes (for head, chest, and pelvis). There is a square, a circle, and a triangle, one red, one blue, and one yellow. The drill sergeant will yell two colors or two shapes (i.e. "red, yellow" or "square, triangle") and you have to hit the red twice on one target, yellow twice on the other (although you could pick whether you go left-right or right-left).

Interesting that Shapes and Colors drills got incorporated into a video game. It's standard combat marksmanship training lots of places, at least in part because it builds the habit of having to think/assess while engaging in a way that a lot of drills do not.

 

[45_auto]

LOL, I know two non-operators who have used it successfully

That would have really made the news! Can you imagine the headlines? Any references?

(Don't worry, I won't be surprised if you can't find any)

 

[scaatylobo]

Ankle shot

If any recall the infamous L.A. bank robbery.

the perps were heavily armored,and one was hiding behind a car when a SWAT officer took him out with shots under a car at his knees/ankles.

I say that if offered a shot that will end a confrontation - take it and be prepared and TRAIN for such.

Having some live gun / real life experiences I say that dont discount it until you have tried it.

But if you know better,good luck.

 

[Sam1911]

That would have really made the news! Can you imagine the headlines? Any references?

(Don't worry, I won't be surprised if you can't find any)

Why in the world would the placement of shots have ever made headlines? I've never seen ONE headline that mentioned WHERE an attacker was shot. All that would be reported would be "citizen defends self against robber" or whatever.

The "Mozambique" drill is a staple of just about every training course, practice session, and match format anywhere, ever. There's no reason to doubt that it can be done, quickly and on demand, by a shooter with something more than an "average" bit of experience with his weapon.

 

[Skribs]

Interesting that Shapes and Colors drills got incorporated into a video game. It's standard combat marksmanship training lots of places, at least in part because it builds the habit of having to think/assess while engaging in a way that a lot of drills do not.

America's Army is a video game put out by the Army, so it makes sense that they would have accurate depictions of training.

Why in the world would the placement of shots have ever made headlines? I've never seen ONE headline that mentioned WHERE an attacker was shot. All that would be reported would be "citizen defends self against robber" or whatever.

I don't have any sources to cite, but I'm pretty sure if an attacker was shot in the groin or buttocks, it would be in the headline.

I trained LEO's and they were THE worst at knowing the gun they carried or how to clean it and then re-assemble it.

I shoot now with civilians and they are MUCH more aware of their tools and the use and limitations.

That's because the LEOs are issued and the civilians go and get their own thing. The civilian has to make a conscious decision on what to get.

 

[checkmyswag]

If you actually have to use your gun, you'll find that in the real world 99.9% of the time, the reason that the first 2 shots don't stop someone is because you missed.

We do Mozambique drills during IDPA. I like it, but yes, the head shot is a slower shot.

 

[45_auto]

Why in the world would the placement of shots have ever made headlines?

What placement of shots are you referring to? Don't know if you've noticed it or not, but ANY use of a handgun in defense makes headlines, irregardless of shot placement.

The "Mozambique" drill is a staple of just about every training course, practice session, and match format anywhere, ever. There's no reason to doubt that it can be done, quickly and on demand, by a shooter with something more than an "average" bit of experience with his weapon.

No doubt. How many times have you (or anyone you know) used it under stress?

Do you consider cops in general to have more or less experience with their weapon than the "average" THR reader? I would bet on a line of cops up against a line of THR readers any time. The vast majority of civilian shooters have never even heard of a "Mozambique" or had a training course. I wouldn't be surprised if every cop that's qualified since 9/11 has shot the "Mozambique" in training. Probably the New York cops involved in the shooting last week (where they hit 9 civilians and everyone is in an uproar) practiced a "Mozambique" every time they qualify with their pistol. As you say, it's a staple of about every training/practice session. Shouldn't have taken either one of them more than 3 shots according to you.

 

[Sam1911]

What placement of shots are you referring to?

I was responding to your (it seemed) claim that if anyone ever shot someone in a classic "Mozambique" pattern, that would make headlines. I've never seen any news report where the reporters made any special notice of the defender's choice of shot placement -- and only a handful that mentioned at all where the attacker's wounds were located.

Don't know if you've noticed it or not, but ANY use of a handgun in defense makes headlines, irregardless of shot placement.

No, I haven't noticed that. I've noticed that the NRA collects those stories, but they don't seem to hit the regular news headlines all that often.

(And "irregardless" isn't a word.)

No doubt. How many times have you (or anyone you know) used it under stress?

I've never had to fire a shot in defense. I've never asked any of my compatriots who have what manner of shot they took. So I have no data to answer that question.

Do you consider cops in general to have more or less experience with their weapon than the "average" THR reader?

Hard to say, but it appears to me from those that I've known, the average cop has far less shooting experience than the average THR reader. Training is another matter. Certainly the average cop has FAR less training AND experience than a significant number of THR readers, but not all of them.

I would bet on a line of cops up against a line of THR readers any time.

Really? You're the only person with firearms experience I've heard who has ever said that to me. (My experience tends more to organizing work parties to repair target stands and ceiling panels, replace light bulbs, and repaint the walls after the police finished their qualifying at our range. ) But, I will admit that the shooters I routinely shoot, recreate, and compete with are shooting and training junkies, and there are many shooting enthusiasts who can barely be expected to shoot more proficiently than the average cop.

The vast majority of civilian shooters have never even heard of a "Mozambique" or had a training course. I wouldn't be surprised if every cop that's qualified since 9/11 has shot the "Mozambique" in training.

One would certainly hope so (though I have no real idea).

Probably the New York cops involved in the shooting last week (where they hit 9 civilians and everyone is in an uproar) practiced a "Mozambique" every time they qualify with their pistol.

So that's what...twice a year? They should certainly be experts, then! LOL.

As you say, it's a staple of about every training/practice session. Shouldn't have taken either one of them more than 3 shots according to you.

Are you saying that shooting a "Mozambique"/Failure-to-stop/body armor sequence was the appropriate response to that situation? Not sure I follow. They seem to have simply shot (at) him until he went down. Don't know if that's what they were trained to do or not.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

A good alternative, which I learned from a friend who trained with Eric Haney of Delta, is to transition to the jugular notch /upper chest area.
Your aiming point would be where the neck joins the body's trunk.
Most vests do not cover this area and gives you a greater margin for error.
If you are point shooting up close--and Haney did teach both aimed and point shooting--- when doing this your eyes would focus on the point of his chin, which puts the bullets in the desired spot.
Phil Singleton of the S.A.S. teaches to target the open mouth rather than the head itself, which also gives greater margin for error.

 

[scaatylobo]

@ sam 1911

Your repost and answer to that other poster are spot on,according to this retired LEO & firearms instr.

Thank you for being so spot on.

As to the next poster from NYC,sorry but I cannot believe that you get much trigger time [ or even have a CCW ].Sorry - just saw that your LEO,sad that you have to work under 'those' conditions.I am ex-NY'ker and SO glad to be from NYC.

So as to the "open mouth" most are not yelling if they are shooting at you AND the mouth area of the face is narrower than the eye/forehead in case you didnt notice.

My agency qual's ONCE a year and most are too lazy or stupid to shoot on their own.

So their ability to do a FTS drill is sad to say the least.

That excludes the "gun nuts" as they are called,you know = those that take the carrying of a gun seriously.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I remember the Colonel telling that story more than once. By the time I'd first heard it, he'd probably told it every day for quite some time/years but every delivery of anything was riveting. He was a gifted teacher/philosopher and not a soul wished he was elsewhere when he spoke.