Range Drills for multiple targets (with pics)

[smince]

I wonder about the ability of those that never try the awkward transitions in this drill, tho.

If you consider swinging from one target to the next 'awkward transitions', no wonder you are quick to discredit FOF and shooting while moving.

Try it from sitting behind a restaurant table having to shoot around bystanders/family members. Or from the drivers seat of a vehicle out of either window. Or from the ground laying or seated because it is very possible to end up on your butt, either from a hit or from slipping and falling (for the record I've tried this both live rounds and FOF, and not just in Gabe's classes. There are other up-to-date trainers out there.). Can you do it when you are sick? Or tired?

Heck, just accessing your weapon from these positions can be a hassle, and during a fight isn't the first time you want to try it.

There is a lot more to winning this 1-on-3 fight than split times on multiple targets.

 

[David E]

If you consider swinging from one target to the next 'awkward transitions', no wonder you are quick to discredit FOF and shooting while moving.

You still insist that I discredit FoF and shooting while moving. You're wrong, of course, as I have mentioned several times the value of both. However, this drill was about developing a specific skill as well as comparing the times it took to apply 3 different tactics to it.

Try it from sitting behind a restaurant table having to shoot around bystanders/family members. Or from the drivers seat of a vehicle out of either window. Or from the ground laying or seated because it is very possible to end up on your butt, either from a hit or from slipping and falling.. Can you do it when you are sick? Or tired?

WAIT A MINUTE !! I thought you and dodson said you could always move! In some of these scenarios, movement is virtually impossible! Suddenly, being able to make target transitions quickly becomes rather important, along with knowing how fast you can do it!!! Thanks for making my point.

There is a lot more to winning this 1-on-3 fight than split times on multiple targets.

Wow, no kiddin' ? Thanks for the newsflash, Dick Tracy. But if you're ever in one of your scenarios, knowing how fast your transition and split times are just might come in handy. It could be the one piece of the 1000 piece puzzle you're glad you had.

 

[smince]

WAIT A MINUTE !! I thought you and dodson said you could always move!

Went back through my posts. Closest I found to your statement was:

but I'm usually moving while doing this.

Shooting at stationary targets is the 'superfluous crap'. There will be movement in these scenarios. Whether it's the BG's moving to target you better, or you getting offline (or falling, or getting shot). Yes, may need to transition. Can you do it from an awkward position, instead of standing on the firing line and shooting at non-moving targets? Will you even practice it? Or is this more 'superfluous crap'?

But if you're ever in one of your scenarios, knowing how fast your transition and split times are just might come in handy.

At that moment, split times will probably be far from my mind. And whatever my times are on the range won't matter a bit unless my BG's are lined up exactly as my targets were.

 

[David E]

The "superfluous crap" is that you two keep berating a simple shooting drill for being something it is not. ("You stupid hammer, why can't you be a wrench!!!")

Odd you haven't posted a single shooting drill that addresses target transitions or debated the value of engaging them once, twice or three times before moving on to the next. That was, after all, the intent of the range session in the OP, that you two consistently ignore.

I've asked smince for specific shooting drills you can do on the range and all I got was FoF/Suarez/Airsoft blather.

Sure, the real badguys will probably move, but the first one or two may not have time to move enough to matter, depending on your demeanor, actions and speed. Might they shoot you anyway, even after taking a hit or two? Absolutely! I never said there were any guarantees.

I wouldn't expect the badguys to line up just like the targets did in the SINGLE drill I posted. No, I'd expect them to be closer together. But, for the umpteenth time, I was replicating a drill already run by another poster here, to determine how long it took going with single/double and triple shots and to compare my times to his. I wonder how well you guys would do on the same drill, but I think I alread know....

 

[Mad Chemist]

I think you guys need to cool it down a little and re-evaluate your arguments.

David,
I think what some folks so strongly disagree with you about is a bit of confusion in the claim of your initial post. It isn't entirely clear if you mean multiple "targets" or multiple "attackers". In my mind these are distinctly different things, but it seems that you equivocate a little on this.

I think you are correct in stating that your drill can be a good metric for evaluating target acquisition times among multiple targets. But we have to draw the line there. It would be false to say that the outlined drill is a good way to evaluate how to approach a multiple attacker scenario.

An effective attacker scenario must necessarily be dynamic. Preferably with live "attackers" and dynamic movement of the attackers as well as the defender.

I take issue with the folks who downgrade the necessity of range drills such as yours David. They are important diagnostic tools for a shooter to gauge some aspects of his shooting ability. To claim that drills such as yours are worthless is arrogant and ignorant in my opinion. Most of us understand that similar drills to this are necessary to maintain overall proficiency with a handgun.

However, you overreach when you claim that your data supports the conclusion you reach. It simply is not true that your sets of data support the claim that the so called "boarding house rules" tactic is superior to alternate tactics such as making multiple hits prior to transitioning to the next target. You left too many variables untested. You analyzed only one rather small facet of a much larger and more complex problem.
I won't accept the argument from authority fallacy that states: "Well Farham says....."
So what?
How did he test it?
When we make scientific claims we must prove them with evidence, relying on rhetoric is insufficient.

Respectfully,
JH

 

[David E]

I think what some folks so strongly disagree with you about is a bit of confusion in the claim of your initial post. It isn't entirely clear if you mean multiple "targets" or multiple "attackers". In my mind these are distinctly different things, but it seems that you equivocate a little on this.

They are different things. However, that doesn't mean there can't be some overlap.

Many well regarded trainers disagree on how to "properly" engage multiple targets. Some prefer one shot each while some prefer double tapping. etc. I closed my first post with, "Which method do you think works best for you? Go to the range and find out !"

To date, no one has posted they've gone to the range to find out which method works best for them.

I think you are correct in stating that your drill can be a good metric for evaluating target acquisition times among multiple targets. But we have to draw the line there. It would be false to say that the outlined drill is a good way to evaluate how to approach a multiple attacker scenario.

It is A way. In fact, it is 3 of many ways. Which one works best for you?

An effective attacker scenario must necessarily be dynamic. Preferably with live "attackers" and dynamic movement of the attackers as well as the defender.

Agreed. But this thread wasn't intended to be about FoF training.

I take issue with the folks who downgrade the necessity of range drills such as yours David. They are important diagnostic tools for a shooter to gauge some aspects of his shooting ability. To claim that drills such as yours are worthless is arrogant and ignorant in my opinion. Most of us understand that similar drills to this are necessary to maintain overall proficiency with a handgun.

Well, most of us.........

However, you overreach when you claim that your data supports the conclusion you reach. It simply is not true that your sets of data support the claim that the so called "boarding house rules" tactic is superior to alternate tactics such as making multiple hits prior to transitioning to the next target. You left too many variables untested. You analyzed only one rather small facet of a much larger and more complex problem.

Well, maybe. I did post that after doing this drill that I'd be real tempted to double tap them all, depending on range, so I'm not presenting anything as the ONE way to do it. I acknowledge and agree that that are many ways to do it.......but some are better than others.

If you have other variables you think should be "tested" on the range, I'd like to hear them. If possible, I'll incorpate them into a shooting drill when I go to the range next week.

And I will say your post was a refreshing change from the "This hammer is worthless because it's not a wrench" vein we'd been getting.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Per OP request...

lpl