Range Drills for multiple targets (with pics)

[Shawn Dodson]

Wow, that's a pretty big ASSumption you make based on me posting a single drill !

Game oriented training is not difficult to recognize.

A drill is a drill. Nothing more.

That's not how the OP presented it. For example:

If you are presented with 3 equally hostile targets, the prudent man shoots them all ONCE before shooting them again.

For example, if I had 3 equal threats at 5 yds spaced 1 foot apart at shoulders, I'd go 1,1,2,1,1 and serve thirds (4ths/5th's, etc ) to anyone needing them. But how fast can you put one shot on each?

This "drill" is based on the faulty tactic of shooting each bad guy once in predetermined sequence and then returning to shoot each one again. With the inclusion of a tactic, it is no longer just a drill. It's faulty training that conditions "the prudent man" to just stand there in the open and try to out-draw and out-shoot 3 equal threats that presumably are already pointing guns at the defender when the timer beeps. It is presumptous training in which, among other things, the defender is presumed to command a reactionary advantage.

A drill can be part of a training regimen. But it doesn't have to be, nor does one particular drill necessarily encompass an entire training regimen.

I agree. Unfortunately the OP presented a shooting drill as a training regimen.

 

[David E]

Shawn, smince, et all.........since you've totally ignored the reason for the shooting drill, how, specifically, do you suggest teaching basic shooting skills? How about target transition skills?

Do you think they'll magically happen or that the shooter's skill will rise to the occasion, regardless of ability? Do you think that practicing to improve one's shooting skill is merely "ballistic masturbation" or "parlor tricks?"

All this stuff about FoF, Airsoft, shooting while moving, etc, etc is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

 

[David E]

This "drill" is based on the faulty tactic of shooting each bad guy once in predetermined sequence and then returning to shoot each one again.

Then internationally known trainer John Farnam is wrong, along with many other notable trainers. I guess they should've checked with Mr. Dodson before forming their conclusions......

No one said anything about a "predetermined sequence," just that shooting one shot into each (Boarding house rules, as Farnam calls it) before shooting a second shot into each of them. Most would agree that it beats the hell out of shooting one target with the entire capacity of whatever gun you happen to have while totally ignoring the other deadly threats.

Unfortunately the OP presented a shooting drill as a training regimen.

No, I didn't. Reread the entire OP again. Then read my follow-up posts clarifying several points of your confusion...... Obviously, at this point, I don't expect Mr. Dodson to agree or understand the purpose of the drill.

 

[Keauxbi]

Most would agree that it beats the hell out of shooting one target with the entire capacity of whatever gun you happen to have while totally ignoring the other deadly threats.

Why not shoot each target twice? 2-2-2

 

[David E]

Why not shoot each target twice? 2-2-2

This is a good question!

In fact, it was also one of the goals of this shooting drill: to compare single tap times to the double tap times to the triple tap times. Are double taps really that much slower?

The target set up, suggested by another poster (favoring triple taps) who had said he'd already run it to compare his times, but he had a friend with a stopwatch. This isn't very accurate at all, so I decided to try it with a shot timer to determine specific time frames, including how long it took for the double taps and how long it took to get the first shot on #3.

I ran the single tap drill 4 times. The average time was 1.98 to get to #3.

I also ran the double tap drill 4 times. The average time to get to #3 was 2.25

Triple taps took me an average of 2.55 to get the first shot on #3

Personally, I was surprised how well I did with the triple taps, but allowing over 1/2 second for #3 to do something isn't something I want to do.

Double taps gave #3 slightly over 1/4 second, which, for me, seems to be right on the line.

But this target array was fairly spread out. The poster that had set it up previously never said which target he engaged first, so I purposely chose the slowest, most difficult target engagement sequence.

Another scenario would be when the badguys were lined up fairly close together at 4 yds instead of 7. It seems to me that it becomes even more prudent to engage each one once the closer they are. I only did this drill once with the Glock 21-SF for a total time of .92

Double tapping them took me to 1.42 total, first shot on #3 was 1.25

When I was a cop, we had several shootings where getting the first hit was far more important than running for cover. Of course, we had a couple where cover was paramount. One incident started with our guy getting out of where he was, (and took hits in the back, stopped by his vest) and the subsequent exchanges took place outside without any cover available.

I think it's good to know how to do it either way, but not everyone agrees with that.

 

[LeonCarr]

David E,

I applaud you for getting out and doing some training, unlike most of the folks that are "armchair commandoing" your "parlor tricks" to death in this thread. I learn something new everytime I go to the range, from better gun handling to a faster easier way to solve a problem. If you learned something during your day at the range, and it sounds like you did, it was beneficial.

By the way, whose grips are those on your 1911 .40?

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[BullfrogKen]

Shawn,

I think we've addressed treating the drill as a training solution. And during the discussion, I think we've seen David relax a bit off of pronouncing the drill as the answer to multiple threats.

It is presumptous training in which, among other things, the defender is presumed to command a reactionary advantage.

I agree it is. The reactionary advantage works when it works. When it doesn't, it doesn't. I think we've touched on the fault of hoping that simply our quickness will be enough.

All this stuff about FoF, Airsoft, shooting while moving, etc, etc is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

I disagree.

The benefit of introducing FoF, shoothouses, 360 environments, and dynamic shooting is that it helps the Practitioner understand why he's doing what he's doing. The big picture and all, you know.


I feel a stubbly, thick round stump. It must be a tree.


I feel a long, thin, leathery-like rope. It must be a snake.


I feel a long, flexible hose with holes in the end. It must be a firehose.

Most would agree that it beats the hell out of shooting one target with the entire capacity of whatever gun you happen to have while totally ignoring the other deadly threats

The are more than simply two, polar opposite options.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Ken,

Thanks, but I'm beginning to believe you were right all along.

I wish it weren't so, my friend. But it is what it is.

 

[smince]

All this stuff about FoF, Airsoft, shooting while moving, etc, etc is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Not really.

I've seen people who are beginner level shooters come away from one weekend of practical training (i.e. Getting Off the X/FoF/Point shooting) with a very high skill level able and confident to handle the very situations you have brought forth in this thread. And this gives them drills to take back and practice.

As Ken says, it's a combination of all the elements that help you in the big picture.

Yes, I shoot at stationary targets, but I'm usually moving while doing this. Because I'm not going to stand still in a conflict. I'm going to present as difficult a target for the BG(s) as possible. Can't practice it on your range? That's where the AirSoft/FoF comes in to play, whether with other people or also against targets in the garage/basement/backyard. This gives people zero reasons not to practice.

Do you think that practicing to improve one's shooting skill is merely "ballistic masturbation"

Improving one's shooting skill has nothing to do with developing the skills to prevail in an actual fight. I fired thousands of rounds from a good weaver stance and getting good hits/good times on multiple targets, but one day I realized that 'ballistic masturbation' was exactly what I was doing.

Gabe Suarez has stated that if it were up to him, he'd have all beginners go through Force-on-Force gunfight training before they ever fired a live round so they could at least get some idea of the dynamics involved in a fight. I think there is a lot of merit in this idea.

 

[David E]

it's a combination of all the elements that help you in the big picture.

The drill(s) in question are but one element of the combination, yet smince and Dodson seem to think it has no place whatsoever in the "big picture."

Giving a gun to a brand new shooter, first time gun buyer that has not fired a single round thru any gun and expecting him to perform safely is silly.

If you want to run them thru FoF, etc, etc, etc before they fire a single shot, that's great. But when do they get to learn how to shoot? When do they get to learn THAT element of the "big picture?"

Would you take a brand new shooter to the range and have his very first shots fired while he's "moving off the X?"

I think we've touched on the fault of hoping that simply our quickness will be enough.

Maybe, maybe not. Ken, as you yourself said, one purpose for a drill is to see how fast we can do something. This can be very worthwhile information. For example, if I'm able to put my hand on my holstered gun, my draw is around 40/100ths' of a second, usually less, if the target is 4 yds or closer. I think that's a good thing to know. Is that realistically applicable in a real self defense situation? Possibly.

Do I get to command the reactionary advantage? Maybe! And if not, perhaps I can work it so I do. If I can't, then I don't have that advantage. But it's silly to assume that the shooter can never have the reactionary advantage. Then again, it's also silly and naive to assume the shooter can always move, yet we have folks making that assumption over and over and over.

There are more than simply two, polar opposite options.

Of course there are. That's why I presented at least 3 options, none of which were polar opposites. Others have stated they'd ignore 2 of the threats and gun down the one blocking their path. Others have stated that they might empty their gun into the first threat. That's probably one opposite. The other might be expecting to talk your way out the confrontation altogether, or simply draw your gun and expect the badguys to mutally agree to your Mexican Stand-off while you back on outta there......... (silly, I know, but some folks think it might work)

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Shawn, smince, et all.........since you've totally ignored the reason for the shooting drill

The manner in which you presented it is not a "drill". It is (was) your entire training regimen for resisting multiple assailants who confront you at gunpoint.

Then internationally known trainer John Farnam is wrong, along with many other notable trainers.

I don't know what Farnam's training consists of, but if he's teaching students to stand in the open and engage multiple assailants one at a time as a winning tactic then, yes, he's wrong. It's faulty training like this that killed SC Trooper Mark Coates in 1992. He shot a bad guy, Richard Blackburn, five times squarely in the torso with his duty .357 Magnum. Blackburn attacked Coates during a traffic stop, shooting Coates with a .22 rimfire mini-revolver at contact distance. Coates' vest stopped the bullet. Coates engaged in a physical scuffle with Blackburn that went to the ground. Coates managed to break free, get to his feet, and that's when he shot Blackburn, who was still on the ground. Blackburn fired once at Coates, who was standing stationary in the open just as his faulty training conditioned him to do. The .22 bullet went through the armhole in Coates' vest, cut a major vessel in Coates thoracic cavity and he quickly collapsed on the pavement. Blackburn survived and was never incapacitated by Coates hits. He remained an active threat to responding troopers.

A standalone drill strictly isolated to exercising target transition skills is one thing. Advocating it as tactical training to win a gunfight against multiple assailants is another.

All this stuff about FoF, Airsoft, shooting while moving, etc, etc is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

I believe that once a shooter has established basic shooting proficiency that an FoF course provides substantially greater benefit than taking an advanced target shooting course. He/she develops an appreciation for the dynamics of violent encounters, and learns what he/she can and cannot do in a fight. The knowledge allows him/her to have an informed opinion about what tactics work and what tactics don't work, and to focus his/her training accordingly.

As for the general value of airsoft as a training tool, Japanese shooter Tatsuya Sakai was the top overall winner of the 2004 Steel Challenge, competing against the likes of Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett, Doug Koenig, and Jerry Miculek. Sakai trained in Japan with an airsoft gun because real guns are prohibited. When he came to the US to compete he trained with, and used in competition a borrowed pistol of the same model as the airsoft pistol he used in Japan.

 

[David E]

It is (was) your entire training regimen for resisting multiple assailants who confront you at gunpoint.

You're totally and completely WRONG. I never presented it as such and certainly never said this was the ONLY way to do it. It was a SHOOTING DRILL that had specific purpose. This has been stated, re-stated and re-re-stated. Either you cannot read and comprehend written words, or you're willfully missing the point.

Farnam does emphasize taking a step to the side during the draw, but my point was, that you missed (again), is that he advocates shooting everyone first before shooting them a second time.

I believe that once a shooter has established basic shooting proficiency

But you constantly dodge the question of how a shooter should go about establishing a basic shooting proficiency.

Tatsuya Sakai.........he's the same guy that DQ'd two years in a row on the first stage at the Steel Challenge for AD's.......and you're using him as your example ????

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there !!

 

[smince]

Giving a gun to a brand new shooter, first time gun buyer that has not fired a single round thru any gun and expecting him to perform safely is silly.

I advocated doing FOF training, not giving a gun to an absolute novice.

If you want to run them thru FoF, etc, etc, etc before they fire a single shot, that's great. But when do they get to learn how to shoot? When do they get to learn THAT element of the "big picture?"

After they have an idea of how the dynamics of a fight will happen.

You know....if I had MY way totally and did not have to conform to market demands (guys want to shoot their guns), this is what I would do.

1). Begin all students with physical training. I would get theim in shape.

2). Once in shape we would begin training in hand to hand combat. Wrestling, Boxing, Kicking and punching so they know the reality and brutality of fighting before ever touching a weapon.

3). Then begin them with force on force drills until they can bust out a take-off, draw on the run and shoot w/o getting shot.

4). Only after all of this was done, would I begin to teach traditional marksmanship. Then there would not be the silly debates about 9mm vs 45 or weaver vs isosceles or even sighted vs. aimed. Every man and woman would know personally what a gunfight was like and what it would take to win one.

I am seriously considering opening up the FOF segment to all beginners and having them "feel the fire" before they get corrupted by the range.-Gabe Suarez

 

[Shawn Dodson]

You're totally and completely WRONG. I never presented it as such...

Re: Post #1:

If you are presented with 3 equally hostile targets, the prudent man shoots them all ONCE before shooting them again.

...[Farnam] advocates shooting everyone first before shooting them a second time.

He's now offering FoF training. The tactics he currently teaches may have evolved as a result of lessons learned. If not, then he and I disagree. It wouldn't be the first time.

But you constantly dodge the question of how a shooter should go about establishing a basic shooting proficiency.

Shooting drills are absolutely necessary to develop and maintain marksmanship skills, provided their limitations as an exercise meant to improve marksmanship are recognized and they don’t morph into ill-conceived tactical training.

Tatsuya Sakai.........he's the same guy that DQ'd two years in a row on the first stage at the Steel Challenge for AD's.......and you're using him as your example ????

That’s him. What training failure(s) may have caused this to happen? Perhaps not enough trigger time with the pistol he used in competition to become thoroughly accustomed to its light, crisp competition trigger under stress? Perhaps, having previously won, he was resting on his laurels and had a different mental attitude towards his training?

 

[David E]

I advocated doing FOF training, not giving a gun to an absolute novice.

Oh. Soooooooo, you agree that learning how to shoot to improve one's shooting skill is a good thing? If so, that's great...........or do you also ridicule their range time as being totally irrelevant because they aren't moving, shooting on the move, the target isn't moving or reacting, etc, etc, etc?

Or do you finally recognize there is a time and place for BOTH building shooting skills and FoF training?

As far as Mr. Suarez is concerned, perhaps he can teach a class that shows how to scam the worker's comp system. You know, where he collects worker's comp because he's "incapacitated" but then is filmed doing all kinds of things that a truly incapacitated person could not do.

Or he could cite the reasons he has his students stand down range inches away from a target while their fellow student shoots it.

 

[David E]

(Farnam's) now offering FoF training. The tactics he currently teaches may have evolved as a result of lessons learned. If not, then he and I disagree. It wouldn't be the first time.

Y'see, you continue to miss the point. Shooting, tactics and training are not always one and the same. Sometimes there is overlap, but here, I was speaking specifically to the shooting sequence, which you copied and pasted before you ran down another rabbit trail.

Farnam, along with many other notable trainers, advocate engaging multiple targets with one shot each before shooting them again.

Obviously, one tactic won't fit all situations. The prudent man knows this and practices alternatives.......such as NOT moving if the situation won't allow it, shooting one handed while holding a "baby," or moving right, left, back and forward if the situation indicates such movement as a viable tactic.

Some folks totally dismiss different ideas and willfully misunderstand the purpose of shooting drills.

Learning, improving and testing various shooting skills (such as target acquisition) is a worthy pursuit, regardless of what some have posted.

I can hear him yelling at the hammer because it is not a wrench! (Great analogy, btw)

 

[smince]

I'll just say that I learned more from two classes with Gabe than I have from anyone else since I first started carrying in 1983. In fact, if I'd learned then what I know now I'd have saved a lot of money, ammo and wasted range time.

Feel free to carry on with your ballistic fantasies.

 

[David E]

I know some gunowners that were impressed with a shooter that knew just a little bit more than they did....but folks that had a basic grasp about shooting had no cause to be impressed in the least.

Performing range drills to identify, learn, improve and test certain skills is hardly a "ballistic fantasy," but an indication that the shooter wants to progress beyond a beginners skill level. Those that don't won't progress at all.

 

[friscolatchi]

Why don't y'all lighten up? All your points were made more than adequately enough to myself, a relatively novice shooter. If I could have my own range, I'd have all kinds of obstructions, scenarios, as a platform to practice on. I don't. You may take FOF training, but how often are you put in a position to implement it? Hopefully never. When I was learning to be a paramedic, my CPR and ACLS classes never really fully developed my skills for running a real "code". Sure, I could push on Annies chest, read the cardiac monitor and push drugs into a dummy, but it was way different on a real person with the persons family, cops and firefighters watching your performance at a difficult trauma or medical scene. The studying, the simluators, the visualization, and the mistakes all help develop skills and confidence. I'll liken that to dry firing, reading articles, stationary targets both from a bench and running, to FOF training. It all has it's place in the learning curve.

 

[David E]

It all has it's place in the learning curve.

Yes, it does.

One thing about FoF is that you need other people to do it. While I might be able to con the wife into doing it a time or two, she knows what I'm trying to do and will react accordingly, maybe even before warranted. Even if she does it right, it only means I know how to handle my wife with an airsoft gun...

Another thing is, it's not repeatable. If you tell me about your FoF training in New York, I can't replicate it here. But with a shooting drill, I can tell you the targets, distance, arrangement, etc, and you can shoot it. Then we'd have a direct comparison. Maybe you'll do or think of something I did not. So next time, I'll set it up again and try it your way. I might learn something new! Or maybe you will. Who knows unless we do it?

The beauty about doing shooting drills at the range is that you can do it alone whenever your schedule allows. You can work on this or that skill, or try this or that technique to see which works better for you. In fact, the OP covered that very thing: which was better when targets were widely spread, single/double/triple taps? How long before #3 took a hit doing it each way?

I didn't know, so instead of speculating about it, I decided to find out. Guess what? It looks like at 7 yds, I may very well do double taps over single taps if the targets are so far apart. Something I wouldn't have discovered had I not set up that particular drill. (which, again, was a drill suggested and already run by someone else, so I was also comparing my times to his.)

When I go to the range, I have specific goals in mind. Just because someone works on ONE drill on a given outing doesn't mean that's all they ever do. The bantering naybobs that assume otherwise betray their foolishness.

The other day, I worked on single shots from the holster on a 20 yd target. I fired about 150 rds doing that. Does that mean I'll ONLY shoot one shot at a badguy if he's 20 yds away? Um, no.

The next time I go, I plan on working on shooting on the move, etc. The time after that, maybe some speed work. After that, strong hand/weak hand shooting. It depends what areas I identify needing attention.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Y'see, you continue to miss the point. Shooting, tactics and training are not always one and the same. Sometimes there is overlap, but here, I was speaking specifically to the shooting sequence, which you copied and pasted before you ran down another rabbit trail.

They’re all training. A shooting drill exercises the technical process of marksmanship. Tactical training exercises interaction between adversaries - sometimes there’s shooting, sometimes there’s not. Posts #1 & #2 take a shooting drill (accuracy, speed) and adds a tactical element (draw and shoot each target, which represents a bad guy who’s pointing a gun at you, and shoot every “bad guy” in a deliberate, predetermined, fixed sequence faster than they can shoot you with the expectation that your hits will rapidly incapacitate them).

Farnam, along with many other notable trainers, advocate engaging multiple targets with one shot each before shooting them again.

As FoF training has become mainstream the square range tactical hypothesis of standing fast while shooting each target once is exposed for the dangerous fallacy it is. Some trainers have recognized this fact and have changed their training as a result.

 

[David E]

Posts #1 & #2 take a shooting drill (accuracy, speed) and adds a tactical element (draw and shoot each target, which represents a bad guy who’s pointing a gun at you, and shoot every “bad guy” in a deliberate, predetermined, fixed sequence faster than they can shoot you with the expectation that your hits will rapidly incapacitate them).

Posts 1 and 2 highlight a day at the range where I compared certain sequences on a certain drill that was previously done by another poster.

In Post #70 I said: You can work on this or that skill, or try this or that technique to see which works better for you. In fact, the OP covered that very thing: which was better when targets were widely spread, single/double/triple taps? How long before #3 took a hit doing it each way?

I honestly don't understand why that's so hard to grasp, or so insistently portrayed as something it is not.

 

[smince]

The only thing shooting a "drill" on a series of targets really does is show how well you can shoot "the drill". If you are used to shooting this certain "drill" and it doesn't happen to fall that way in a real incident, will you be able to correct?

Another thing is, it's (FOF) not repeatable.

One of the beauties of the concept. Each run will be different. Causes you to think and react on your feet quickly...(What? Oh yeah, you might have to get dirty doing FOF. And it doesn't have the CDI factor of shooting really tight fast groups.)

I honestly don't understand why that's so hard to grasp, or so insistently portrayed as something it is not.

Maybe it isn't us who doesn't understand

 

[David E]

The only thing shooting a "drill" on a series of targets really does is show how well you can shoot "the drill". If you are used to shooting this certain "drill" and it doesn't happen to fall that way in a real incident, will you be able to correct?

This is the first time I ever shot this target array. As far as adjusting, I'm absolutely positive I can. I wonder about the ability of those that never try the awkward transitions in this drill, tho.

Maybe it isn't us who doesn't understand

You're right. I don't understand why you and dodson insist on making this thread about FoF/airsoft/superfluous crap.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

As far as adjusting, I'm absolutely positive I can.

I sincerely hope you can too.

Mark Twain once said: "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way."