If the goal is to train weapon handling for personal protection, I'm gaining preference for a few principles:
- Only hits count, not how close to a hit it was or how perfectly centered it was
- A hit closer to the center has no more value than one inside the edge. We cannot see the vitals inside the body, so there is no additional value to being more precisely in the center or anywhere else in particular. Because of this, aligning the sights more precisely on the center is time that should not be wasted in making a hit.
- I like realistic-size targets at various ranges. Some people use smaller targets to simulate the greater precision needed for greater distances. I don't like this because the sight-offset has to be considered when shooting a very small target at close range and this does not apply to a distant target.
- I prefer hit/miss targets like steel but because they're costly, heavy, and require a strong stand, I tend to use paper since my practice ranges are all temporary. I can hold up some paper plates without a truck-load of heavy-duty stands. I like the 5.25" center of a paper plate or a 3x5" index card. Either of these can work for handgun or rifle. My targets could be bigger. 6" or 8" are probably fine. I throw mine away, so I use what's cheap. I do not mark a bullseye on them. I do not look for smaller groups than ones on those targets.
- I do not use black and cream targets. Those traditional NRA-style targets were designed so the sights would be aligned with the lower black edge on the cream background and the sights would be adjusted so the point of impact would be at the level of the bullseye. It's a game. Your opponent won't be wearing one.
- Group size does have its use in a technical study or test of a firearm or ammunition, but nobody admires their group size in a gunfight and they shouldn't in practice for one.
- I do not score a target numerically, only hit or miss. Misses are regarded as a serious failure. I'm not plinking. I'm not unfamiliar with the gun. I don't want to go any slower than necessary but I'm not racing. High speed doesn't justify missing. I have no excuse for misses. This is what I carry and I will be accountable for every single shot.
- I do absolutely go for speed, just not at the cost of sufficient precision for my realistic goals. Because any hit anywhere on my realistic-size targets is "valid" I can go as fast as what will allow me to make any such hit whether it's from the holster or splits.
- I try to incorporate movement, mostly steps and turns (I'm not on a firing line, I practice alone). I would like to do more of this in a meaningful way, but I haven't thought it all through or figured out what and how much movement is really adding anything. I've done obstacle courses and parcourse type exercises in training classes. I can't build anything elaborate since my ranges are temporary. I do shoot in and around my vehicle (at least 5000 feet from roadways and with backstops), usually in something like a sand or gravel pit. I've done shoot houses in training classes, but don't consider "room clearing" a useful skill to me. I do have some abandoned structures available if I thought of a purpose for them, but I haven't yet.
- I didn't at first, but I've come to believe the static range / firing line is a practical place to work on fundamentals of weapons handling and while I think the other skills (other than fundamental weapons manipulation) are both harder to master and more important, I don't think using live fire adds a lot to the process. It should probably be done sometimes, but most of the time I believe tactics can be worked out with simunition, airsoft, paintball, laser tag or nerf dart guns. I mean, can you learn to clear a house with a nerf dart gun? Heck yeah. What does using a 9mm add? A lot of damn noise and ricochet hazard. Those frangibles are mostly frangible when they hit steel, not so much when they miss and go through and bounce off stuff other than steel.
- I know ex-something-or-other dudes would have a hard time charging a lot of money for vehicle defense / anti-carjacking classes if they used nerf dart guns, but I'm pretty sure I'd learn the same things and avoid the risk of bullet skid marks on my hood. I do think simunitions or airsoft are better than nerf for force-on-force. I'm mostly kidding about nerf to make the point.
- Back on fundamentals, I try to incorporate shoot/no-shoot decisions into drills. It's easier with training partners.
- Partners can also pull the cord for a swinger or slider. Again, I've done these in classes but don't have anything that elaborate for practice. I could use a motorized one when practicing alone, but the cost, transport, setup and takedown are all involved and I'm skeptical of the benefit. I'd rather just go to classes every once in a while and use theirs for whatever it adds along with the better-known benefits of classes.
- There is some evidence that often missed shots are the first from the holster, the first after clearing a malfunction, the first after reloading, and the last in a string. There are probable reasons behind these things, but it suffices here to say that I would rather be working intentionally on doing any of these things without misses than just making pretty groups at really long ranges or burning through a pile of ammo to get lightning-fast split times on a full mag dump.
- The "Bill Drill" could be a meaningful skill-developer or test of skill, but what are you going to do in a gunfight if the threat ceases after the first shot? Keep ripping through 6 with .17 splits because you're awesome like that? Drills can be useful, but it should be understood they don't represent "real-word" conditions. Doing curls to develop your biceps isn't going to turn you into a winning boxer. You can do all kinds of exercises to obtain terrific body-builder results, but just being a body-builder doesn't win fights.