Does Conventional Marksmanship Win Gunfights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BullfrogKen well put, however I have to disagree with one statement

I think the article is about 20 years behind the times. Many departments abandoned the square range and bullseye qual years ago. And some more progressive ones are branching out into some form of FoF/Simunitions exercise day/week as additional, supplemental, but ungraded training.

I feel this article is right on with the times. Although I might agree that many departments have seen the need for more realistic training, the adjustments are predominately seen in the special ops sections. There are also many more departments that may have seen the need for the adjustments, but the powers that be, man power or most often the budgets put a stop to any forward movement. So again for police officers it comes down to training on there own dime. Training that ain't cheap especially on many of the salaries these officers are getting. I also find it hard to believe and have yet to run into a department that has abandoned the square paper tagets for a reason that you described
Those results are easily established and defended in investigations
. So until people stop sueing police departments I don't see the yearly paper target qualifications going anywhere.
 
This is the NJ standards, updated in 2003. I see very little in state-of-the-art techniques here:
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

More from Gabe Suarez:
SOME NOTES FROM FORCE ON FORCE

1). All fights involve one party taking the initiative and the other party responding. There are no mutually agreed upon fights. You start the ambush, react to it, or avoid the danger area altogether. Most so-called modern gun training, takes the assumption that, due to a super developed mind-set, that the "modern operator" will never be surprised and thus always have the initiative. Very wishful thinking if you ask me.

2). If you have good information and can trust what you see, you can take the initiative on the adversary. This may mean preemptive drawing and shooting, as well as preemptively leaving before the fight begins. Distance benefits those who wish to be preemptive which is why the insistence of certain schools in always maintaining such distance, and always being alert.

Problem is, you can't "always" do anything. If you can guarantee always being alert, 24/7/365, and will never be surprised - and can guarantee it 100%, then just work on your marksmanship and don't worry about anything else. In fact, why are you even listening to me? The rest of us will look at other solutions.

3). If the adversary also has the initiative the result will either be a "suicide drill" where each man kills the other, or a stand-off where nothing happens until one of them decides to either act or leave. We see the suicide drill a lot when training first time FOF students from certain gun disciplines. They rely on a fast draw without thinking that the other man may also have a fast draw, or even get to start the fight.

4). Even in cases of unequal speed, but equal initiative, when men rely only on draw speed, unless one screws up the draw, the situation we described ends up with both men shot. The hits may be separated by 1/4 or 1/2 second, but excluding a head shot, I do not believe a pistol shot will be likely to stop the other man from pressing a trigger.

5). All gunfights are 50% shooting and 50% not being shot. I think most sane men would agree that the "not getting shot" is more important that the shooting part. Moving sharply off the line of attack drastically increases your safety from the adversary's gunfire. Staying put in a perfect Weaver or Isosceles, increases the odds of taking a hit unless you are ambushing the other man with total surprise or are behind cover (again preemptive).

Why do you think most schools avoid any force on force at all, and those who do use it reserve it for "hunt the burglar" type scenarios that will support their particular "system"?

6). Some directions of movement tend to increase the angle away from the gun man's muzzle better than others. This means it takes more time for him to get his muzzle back on you. It also means it gives you more time on the trigger. With sufficient hits, he may not ever be able to catch you. I say "may" because there are no guarantees in a fight.

7). In a reactive event (which most CCW fights will tend to be) it is imperative to move off the "X" to avoid being hit. As well, drawing and getting your own shots moving toward him is highly important. If either one is delayed you increase the chances of getting shot.

Most guys get shot when they stop. They initiate movement and avoid the first few shots, (the classic gun school side step) but then stop to take a precise shot. At that point they get hit. Keep moving until he's down, you have escaped, or you are behind cover. Movement is life; stationary shooting in the open is death.

9). The most important step once the game opens is to step off the X. Make that dynamic!

10). As hard for some people as it is to hear this, in a reactive gunfight, your physical conditioning is a factor in your survivability. Agility is an issue. If you lack agility, you'd best be hard on the alertness phase so you do not have to be reactive. The problem is that it is hard to guarantee such things. Historically there is a belief that the gun trumps everything, and that there is no need to do anything else. Your first force on force evolution changes that. Instead of trying to shave a tenth of a second off your draw, or shooting a tighter group, get to the gym!

11). Centerline Draws - Appendix Draw, or Cross Draw are markedly faster than strong side hip or behind the back. The lines and amount of motion required to get the gun on target are dramatically less. Why these two modes of carry have been ignored by many is primarily due to artificial restrictions at competitions and competition-based shooting schools.

12). No one has seen a traditional sight picture for the first three shots in our Reactive Drills since I began teaching this material. Each FOF student must understand less than optimum methods of aligning the pistol. Point Shooting, Meat-N-Metal and other methods have value and their place in the fighting progression.

13). An understanding of the ranges of combat and what is applicable at each distance interval is important. When people are pressed, they change the interval by either running away, or closing the gap to a clinch. The idea that you will always be able to keep your distance "no matter what" is ridiculous. Learn how to fight up close when the time arrives. Your ability to understand this and exploit it will make you a better fighter.

14). Concessions of accuracy and movement. When moving do not concede your speed of movement to gain an edge in accuracy. Rather than modifying your movement to accommodate range-based shooting, modify your range-based shooting to accommodate your movement.

Well, those are just some of the things you will learn for yourself at your first Force On Force Gunfighting Session.
 
And how can we help our LEO's? Maybe when they attend an IDPA or USPSA match with us then we chip in to buy them ammo for the match. And training schools should give LEO's really good discounts.

Well, with a very few exceptions, you'll wait a long time to get the chance to give an officer ammo, or even a soda, at a match, 'cause they just aren't there, and it isn't the price of ammo that's keeping them away. Those that choose to come already aren't the problem. In fact, many of the officers I've shot with who do make the personal effort to train and practice in their own time and with their own cash, are very, very good.

But for the average officer, who isn't a "rock star" with his/her sidearm (or even if they think they ARE), going to a shooting match can be a frustrating and disturbing thing.

The gun, and the implied expertise with it, is part of the uniform of office. The squared-away professionalism the officer exudes helps project his/her authority. Showing up at a shooting match -- where any shopkeeper or trucker can point out what's wrong with the way you arrange the gear you wear every day, where an accountant or mailman can critique your grip, stance, and trigger control, and where everyone from Jimmy the clerk from the local Quick-E-Mart to Sara the suburban housewife can outshoot you with your own gun -- can put huge cracks in that demeanor of strength and authority.

This is a very real issue. I've had officers tell me of (finally) convincing other officers to come to a match with them, only to have them refuse to ever attend another because they couldn't handle being "embarassed" by a bunch of average citizens. It's more than embarrassment, though, it's actually a threat to their confidence and authority.

It's as though a commercial jet pilot, with many tens of thousands of hours of flight time, gets invited to stop by the local grass strip -- and when he gets there he finds a bunch of local weekend enthusiast amateur pilots are doing rolls, loops, and aerobatics like it's nothing, and he doesn't have the skills to hang with them.

I really feel for those guys. It's one thing to be a school teacher or a dentist or something and come in last place at your first few IDPA matches. You can always laugh it off with, "not bad for a dentist!" or whatever. No sweat. It isn't what you're SUPPOSED to know how to do. No one's life is affected by your speed and accuracy with a gun. But with a cop that's all different. A cop that gets his rear end handed to him on the shooting range can leave feeling inadequate at his job. As though he's just proved that he shouldn't be wearing the badge -- and everyone saw it.

Even if that's completely bogus, those feelings are a tough thing to face.

-Sam
 
I don’t know that current combat games are a solution to a lack of good training for law enforcement officers. Like they’re regular training the game courses, techniques, and sometimes weapons, aren’t appropriate for what they need, which is really how to respond to an attacker who is feet rather then yards away.

This is not to say that the games aren’t fun, but rather that like an officer’s regular training too much emphasis is misplaced toward longer range, sighted shooting on stationary targets.
 
I used to work part-time at our local FOP range. I'll tell you that the average cop in my area has a difficult time scoring the 80% needed to qualify. It is a basic course with little or no movement.

The first time I ever shot it was with a brand new Glock that I had just bought the day before and I got 98/100. The officers shooting the same time I was, a few were in the high 80's but most barely made the cut. Not to mention that my local gun dealer gets paid $20 each to strip and clean several officers guns after they shoot qualification because they can't (or won't) clean it themselves.

And FWIW, I know many who don't carry off-duty, or may have one in the car 'just in case'.

I've taken 5 private classes in the last 3 years, most have around 20 students. LE averages about 2-3 slots in every class I've taken, the rest are us lowly private citizens.

I posted this just to reinforce the point that most cops aren't gun guys.
 
Training

Well, I obviously can't speak for "most" dept.'s but the one I work for still remains in the "dark ages" as far as firearms training for its Officers. It is very much up to the individual or groups of Officers to enhance their training and abilities in weapons and self-defense. While "most" dept.'s (that I am aware of) sing the same song about "budget woe's", you still see them pouring dollars into every other "high tech" gadget imaginable.

I believe our reality is that we (as Officers) are discouraged so harshly from ever being involved in any "shooting incident" (due to liability to the agency) that some (administration) believe that if they (the dept.) would be precieved as encouraging such conduct should they give "too much" training in this area. "Backwards thinking" I know, but the reality is that most (admin's) are more liability conscious than Officer safety conscious. Sad but true. Good Luck
 
I don’t know that current combat games are a solution to a lack of good training for law enforcement officers. Like they’re regular training the game courses, techniques, and sometimes weapons, aren’t appropriate for what they need, which is really how to respond to an attacker who is feet rather then yards away.

This is not to say that the games aren’t fun, but rather that like an officer’s regular training too much emphasis is misplaced toward longer range, sighted shooting on stationary targets.
"Gun games", just like FoF, should be a component of a well-rounded training program. Gun games help serve as a pressure test on things such as accuracy, trigger control, shooting on the move, etc. All are key things in officer involved shootings.
 
"Gun games", just like FoF, should be a component of a well-rounded training program. Gun games help serve as a pressure test on things such as accuracy, trigger control, shooting on the move, etc. All are key things in officer involved shootings.

In both cases, training and gun games are only useful in the real world if they address what an officer (or others) are most likely to encounter. The games I'm aware of put most of the emphasis in the wrong place, and the same thing can be said about some training programs.

0-5 feet, 268 officers killed, 49% of total
6-10 feet, 107 officers killed, 20% of total
11-20 feet, 65 officers killed, 12% of total
Note that the percentage totals indicate that 440 officers killed (81%) with firearms in the time frame specified were killed at distances under seven yards.

How many of the gun games (not to mention training programs) emphasize shooting at 0 to 10 feet? Or 0 to 21 feet (7 yards)?

Why don't they? :scrutiny:
 
In both cases, training and gun games are only useful in the real world if they address what an officer (or others) are most likely to encounter. The games I'm aware of put most of the emphasis in the wrong place

Both USPSA and IDPA have targets within 10 feet, often at arms length. Many posters on THR don't ever practice closer than 5 yds, and seldom that close. Sometimes citing that they only shoot their DA guns single action. Yet, they go on to tell us how they are solely interested in practicing for defensive scenarios, so it's not just cops that need a wake up call.

As was mentioned, shooting "gun games" is but one component in the overall picture.

One needs to understand that shooting "gun games," contrary to popular belief, IS NOT, repeat, IS NOT "training."

They ARE a good way to improve your overall handgun skill, ensure your equipment works as needed, etc. But the main advantage to participating in the "gun games" is that it requires the shooter to perform on demand, the first time, regardless of the stress level. Also, he has to develop the ability to think on his feet and adapt as needed, right now, as things rapidly progress.

So, shooting USPSA and IDPA will: improve gun skill, enable you to perform at a top level on demand and enhance your ability to think on your feet...

Most people would view these as positive things in a real gunfight.
 
I see what Fuff is saying, but I think David is more right than wrong. I shoot a LOT of stages that involve contact-distance shots, shooting from retention, making multiple hits while retreating to cover, engaging multiple assailants "surrounding" the shooter, and similar skills.

Is that the "focus" of these matches? Well, I can't say that. There are a few 20 yd. shots, too, and rather a lot in between.

Perhaps training needs to be 90% focused on 10 feet and under. But, in the unlikely event that most departments would even choose to do so, making the jump from square range marksmanship to "gun game" format training with scenarios that were perhaps balanced slightly out of line with the statistics, would still be a great improvement, no?

-Sam
 
The primary purpose of reality-based, force-on-force (F-o-F) training is to develop experienced-based, “been there, done that” decision-making: to mentally, psychologically and emotionally program the mind for success.

It's important that training scenarios present realistic behavioral threat cues under highly stressful, realistic conditions to learn how to recognize threat indicators, interpret them, and apply appropriate tactics. I believe it's essential to have an understanding of the mechanics of conflict to gain the most from AirSoft F-o-F training and to ensure you don't learn bad habits that can get you in legal jeopardy or killed.

Training scenarios must be tightly scripted to force the trainee out of his comfort zone – compelling him to make decisions under extreme psychological and emotional duress – and to ensure the trainee's reactions are the only variable. Under these highly stressful conditions it's not unusual for trainees to mentally freeze or to make stupid decisions with deadly consequences.

The intent is to obtain realistic gunfighting/alternative-force experience so you have "prior experience" to draw from as you program your O-O-D-A Loop to orient quickly to a situation, allowing you to "Observe" and then intuitively "Act", bypassing the need to consciously progress through “Orient” and “Decide”.

IMO, the whole purpose of realistic force-on-force training is to exercise the "orientation" part of Boyd's O-O-D-A Loop. It does several things, some of which:

* Provides the successful experience needed to develop self-confidence, and condition your sympathetic nervous system (responsible for triggering psycho-physiological reactions to fear) against activation in a real fight. Ideally, the mind regards an actual force encounter as "just another training drill," which frees it to creatively address tactical problems. ("Training should be bloodless battle and battle should be bloody training." -- Roman Legion Maxim )

* Provides experience required to develop intuition (gut feeling), enabling you to more quickly "read" and orient to an unfolding situation.

* Forces you to apply your intellectual knowledge in high-stress situations that penetrate your mind-time-space, shoving you out of your comfort zone and reveal possible conflicts between what you KNOW you should do versus what you ACTUALLY do.

* Identifies your personal weaknesses, which allows you take action to improve yourself. The training should allow you to "train to failure" but not "train for failure" (i.e., "got ya!" scenarios).​

In regard to gunfighting, it appears that sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activation (fear response) is the biggest reason for poor marksmanship. When the SNS is inoculated against activation by reality-based training, actual gunfight marksmanship increases substantially. You perform as you have trained (provided you've developed unconscious competence-level marksmanship skills), which decreases your overall mental load to allow you to solve spontaneous tactical problems.

It appears that most people who’re unfamiliar with F-o-F training are preoccupied with learning if they can hit a live, moving target, hence the obsession with marking projectiles. While this is okay under certain conditions, there's a lot more to be gained than merely learning whether or not you can get good hits on a live bad guy. Indeed, marking projectiles have the potential of programming the bad habit of expecting to see where your hits land on an adversary during a gunfight. Better yet is to have the bad guy role player realistically "react" when he is shot at or hit a predetermined number of times. This is part of scenario development.

Properly employed, AirSoft F-o-F can be a powerful training tool. Improperly used, it can set up trainees for failure. Beware!

Properly structured, emotionally charged scenarios are key. Good role players are also required.

Marksmanship is nothing more than hand/eye coordination skill, i.e., manipulate the trigger without disturbing the sights.

The inexperienced who question the value of AirSoft for marksmanship training ought to consider the observations of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (www.killology.com), as cited in the book, Training at the Speed of Life, (Volume 1, p. 58), in regard to first person shooter video games:

In Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, Grossman and DeGaetano detail how:

Michael Carneal, the fourteen-year old boy who walked into a Paducah school and opened fire on a prayer group meeting that was breaking up, never moved his feet during his rampage. He never fired far to the right or left, never far up or down. He simply fired once at everything that popped up on his 'screen.' It is not natural to fire once at each target. The normal, almost universal, response is to fire at a target until it drops and then move on to the next target. But most video games condition participants to fire at each target only once, hitting as many targets as possible, as quickly as possible in order to rack up a high score. It's awful to note that of Michael Carneal's eight shots, he had eight hits, all head and upper torso, three dead and one paralyzed. And this from a kid who, prior to stealing that gun, had never shot a real handgun in his life.​

Equipment
Gun:
I use KWA "G19" gas blow back (GBB) AirSoft pistols for F-o-F training. The KWA has similar (not identical) heft, feel and dimensions of an actual Glock 19, costs about $120.00, and can be used with my leather Glock 19 holsters. I've had good experiences ordering from www.airsoftatlanta.com

I've fitted my personal KWA "G19" with XSSight Systems (formerly Ashley Outdoors) Big Dot (non-tritium) sights to match the 24/7 tritium Big Dot sights currently installed on my Glock 19 carry gun.

Accuracy of the KWA "G19" is more than adequate for F-o-F training.

I also painted over the blaze orange markings on the muzzle end of the slide. For reality-based training it helps to have realistic looking training aids. The intent is to condition the mind to regard the AirSoft pistol as a real handgun (instead of a toy gun).

BBs
Don't use white BBs for F-o-F training or personal defense training; otherwise you'll learn bad habits (looking for BBs in flight, expecting to see where your shots land on the target). Also, don't load the magazine to full capacity. Load it to the actual capacity of your PD gun. Better yet, for reality-based training, about a half-dozen rounds is adequate per scenario.

Marking BBs can only be fired reliably in spring action AirSoft guns.

Propellant
I use ordinary propane gas for propellant instead of "green gas." You can purchase an adapter from either Airsoft Atlanta or Airsoft Innovations for about $30.00 (see www.airsoft-innovations.com). A cylinder of propane costs less than $2.50 compared to a bottle of "green gas," which can cost $10 - $15 (plus shipping).

PPE
If you plan to use Airsoft for F-o-F you need protective gear. I use a goggle/mask system and throat protector from JTUSA designed specifically for Airsoft F-o-F applications (see www.jtusa.com/airsoft). In addition I suggest gloves with armored knuckles and crotch protection. (If someone made armored pasties I'd recommend them too as hits to the nipple can be extremely painful.) Airsoft BBs sting when they hit, and then the pain seems to increase in intensity for a few seconds immediately afterward. They can also raise quite a welt. I suggest clothing no heavier than jeans and a long sleeve t-shirt to retain the pain penalty value of getting hit.

In my experience, getting hit hurts, and then after nerves in the immediate vicinity of the hit recover (about 3-5 seconds), the pain increases in intensity for about 15-20 seconds. For me, its: "Ow," pause, then, "Son-of-a-beyotch that hurts!"

Spring guns are a great way to get started with Airsoft, IMO. I have a couple of $20 Walther P99 replicas that are accurate enough to shoot down a hallway and are plenty adequate for CQB training and for developing presentation skills (getting hits out of the holster). Plus they're the only ones that can shoot marking BBs with any degree of reliability. (Paint marking BBs get stuck in the bore about 1 in 5 times, in my experience, which is probably why they aren't recommended for anything other than spring guns. I haven't mustered up the courage to try them in my GBB pistols.)

When I made the move from spring to gas guns, boy was I impressed. I could perform dry fire (if you want to call it that) training with a "Glock" and not have to cycle the action after each shot.

Perhaps the best thing about Airsoft is that you don't need any special facilities to perform projectile based training, although the BBs can put shallow pockmarks in sheetrock from direct hits. (The BBs can also be a hazard to small knick-knacks and picture frame glass.)

Learning Resources
Depending on how deeply you want to get into F-o-F training, you might consider Kenneth Murray's new book "Training at the Speed of Life" (see www.armiger.net). Murray is co-inventor of Simunitions. Volume 1 covers, in extraordinary detail, the psychological aspects of reality based training, training safety, and scenario development. It's not not light reading nor do I recommend it if you have only a casual interest in F-o-F training. Anyone who purchases this book with expectations to just jump right into F-o-F training after reading it is going to be severely disappointed. Doing it right isn’t easy. There's a lot more to it than just getting a bunch of buddies together and having an improvised skirmish. It will, however, open your eyes to the enormous value and power of reality-based training.
 
Last edited:
But, in the unlikely event that most departments would even choose to do so, making the jump from square range marksmanship to "gun game" format training with scenarios that were perhaps balanced slightly out of line with the statistics, would still be a great improvement, no?

Perhaps, it would depend on how the game-based training was conducted and what was or wasn't emphasized. The key question is, "what is emphasized?"

One needs to understand that shooting "gun games," contrary to popular belief, IS NOT, repeat, IS NOT "training."

I would fully agree. In some ways the experience can be productive, in other ways not. The problem I see is that both training, as it is commonly experienced, and the shooting games (also for the most part) do not address either the circumstances nor environment under which a law enforcement officer or private citizen is most likely to encounter a confrontation. However the games are unlikely to change, and are under no obligation to do so. If there is agreement on this point then the next question is "What can be done to better the situation? Obviously that will take some thinking beyond what is being done now.
 
You can also get these resources for FOF training:

http://www.onesourcetactical.com/force-on-forcehandgundrillsthedvd.aspx

http://www.onesourcetactical.com/force-on-forcegunfighttrainingbook.aspx

Yet, they go on to tell us how they are solely interested in practicing for defensive scenarios, so it's not just cops that need a wake up call.
Yes, but shooting tight groups from a perfect stance is more of an ego booster than coming home with welps from AirSoft pellets and Nok training knives:D
 
Last edited:
Shawn,
Excellent information.

I have found from instructing FOF cousres for the last ten years is that the dynamics of any FOF scenario can be manipulated to support any outcome. This is a dangerous thing all on its own and the reason behind Shawn emphasis on reality based force of force.

Additionally, so many self proclaimed FOF experts test tactics and techniques where both parties know what is going to occur prior to the drill to support their pet technique and/or claim. Let face the facts...if you suit anyone up in FOF gear they immediately go into high alert and conduct felony stops on a suspicious person call because they know they are going to be shot and/or get to shoot someone. The goal of FOF is to teach decision making skills and how to act and react under pressure to win a gun fight. It never stops amazing me how a little bit of pressure affects decision making skills and how tunnel vision kicks in and students miss obvious danger signs and weapons in plain view. The key to FOF is a properly structured FOF where the person(s) are subject to several decision making scenarios before they have to use force and/or deadly force.

The most important thing I learned from studying officer involved deaths is when a criminal was caught flat footed they waited for the officer to make a mistake and then used that mistake to gain the initiative. If no mistake were made the criminal went peacefully to jail or died trying to escape.

Smince,
I sure hope you’re getting paid a commission!
 
Smince...I have a simple piece of advice for you...skip the middleman and train with the best!
I don't get to travel much any more. I have to go with what is in easy driving range of me.

With that said, I've had ECRG and 0-5ft Gunfighting with Gabe, and through SI got a couple of AMOK/Tom Sotis classes. These have filled some holes that were lacking in my skill set :)
 
Smince,
The important part is you are getting training, despite my personal feelings towards Suarez after the low down attack I received on another forum, his material is sound. However, there is a whole world of trainers out there that have been teaching this material for a lot longer and some of them have actually used it for real. These trainers will make you a well rounded shooter. My point is to remind you not to put all of your eggs in one basket and you may have to seek some of them out. Not that is anything wrong with the training you have taken. For example, PoPo22 found me and asked me to put on a class for his officers two summers ago and I was in the area so I did the class for free.
 
Thanks 7677.

I think I've got the shooting thing fairly well in hand right now (although I know we always need improvement). The H2H needs a good bit of work, so I'm concentrating on that at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top