Targets That Help Us Train to "Shoot Until Threat is Neutralized"

[Kleanbore]

I really don't thing that mechanical targets--paper, wood, or metal--can be devised that would effectively "teach" shooters when to stop shooting.

On the other hand, simulation software can be designed to help with that, and with shoot/no-shoot situations, in a training facility that uses large flat screens.

 

[strambo]

Agreed on the video simulators, they are very good for this sort of thing. No training method or tool is 100% realistic. Each tool or training method has some things it does well and others it doesn't. The best training program will be a blend of all.

Video simulators are great for looking real, providing visual and verbal feedback for decision making etc. They are decent for marksmanship, poor for trigger control (unless you are using your gun), poor for recoil management and medium for providing stress.

Live fire is best for recoil, trigger control and marksmanship, not so great for decision making and not so great for stress.

FoF is best for stress and very good for decision making. Not great for raw marksmanship and there are issue with realism in regards to facial expression etc. as everyone is covered in a mask. It is also very resource intensive.

Dry fire is free and best for trigger control, very good for marksmanship, useless for stress or decision making under stress. Blanks can blend some of the best aspects of FoF w/o the need for all the Pro gear, but provide no marksmanship feedback so they are best for extreme CQC practice. "Force on target" (as opposed to "force on force"-using some sort of sim round instead of live, like Simunition FX or CQT) can allow for the use of a much more realistic facility to shoot targets in, even your home w/o needing a live fire capable facility.

Everything I mentioned above is actually within the realm of an individual shooter's budget with some substitutions (and imagination) like airsoft subbed for Simunition etc. There are home video simulators, I don't know how good they are. Reactive 3d targets can be had for a lot less than the $2-$300 cost of the best. A $35 plastic 3D torso, with old clothes, with a balloon rigged to drop on a cart/pulley system would be pretty darn good for a low cost. Everyone is already (or should be) doing the standard dry and range live fire practice.

 

[Kleanbore]

Strambo, that is an excellent summary.

I'll add that live fire with moving targets in a multi-sided facility is better than shooting at stationary targets in a square range.

 

[strambo]

Strambo, that is an excellent summary.

I'll add that live fire with moving targets in a multi-sided facility is better than shooting at stationary targets in a square range.

Roger that. The pinnacle of live fire would be clothed and reactive mannequins (some that move) in a 360 deg furnished shoot house.

This is also where a "force on target" option comes into play. You can use Airsoft with home made movers at home (indoors or in the yard) in a 360 deg environment w/o needing a 180-360 deg. live fire range.

My airsoft guns will shoot into 6" groups at 10yds which is more than accurate enough for civilian CCW practice.

 

[strambo]

Speaking of "force on target" exercises. A while back I set up 3 different clothed 3D torso targets in my house and had my wife "clear" it with an airsoft gun for practice pie-ing corners and to add a touch of stress (She knows clearing the house should never be "plan A" it was just a drill).

When she came downstairs, the guy picture below had a foam AK to my head and she had to make a fast hostage rescue shot (with me as the live hostage!). That took her off guard, but she only hesitated a second and made the shot. (Of course I had eye pro on...)

Then I had her set the targets up for me. Easy drill to do, you can put clothes on a IPSC style cardboard torso as well.

Always arm them with a replica gun (or not) and react to what they are actually holding (or not holding). Get used to making decisions based on the situation, not just because you decided to practice shooting targets. Even on the square range, unless I'm shooting dots or bullseyes, my targets are always armed if they are a human shape or they don't get shot. I'm not training to shoot unarmed people (unless a justifiable threat is posed by an unarmed person making deadly force necessary, like an intruder in your child's room or just in your home depending.)

Extremely realistic practice is neither hard, nor expensive...it does require knowledge and most importantly the discipline to actually do it. That is the hardest part for me, making the time to train and practice...

 

[Branko_D]

Are the people who attack civilians easier to stop than those who attack LE or soldiers?

Soldiers generally use 9mm FMJ, so yes, the civilian has a slightly more effective handgun. Besides, you could argue that they face a different profile of opponents from the LE/civilian.

Now, whether being effectively judged by different standards from the police is something you want to factor in, is up to you. Of course the amount of shots will be looked at, but if it's necessary, it's necessary.

 

[jmorris]

Falling steel, if its still up you need to keep shooting...if I ever had reason to shoot something living I would follow the same "tactic".

 

[Steel Talon]

Shoot, move and cover. Continue to lay down fire until threat stops; or you have made an avenue of escape for yourself. As for targets to effectively represent this there are none.

Simunition training is about the closest since you use your duty weapon,and it puts the "feeling" of having to react under fire.

AFAIC...

 

[Old Fuff]

Continue to lay down fire until threat stops;

Gee... I'm not sure how much fire I can lay down with my 5 or 6 shot snubby, whichever I happening to be pocket carrying.

 

[bearcreek]

Gee... I'm not sure how much fire I can lay down with my 5 or 6 shot snubby, whichever I happening to be pocket carrying.

Best hope you never get in a spot where you need to do that then I guess.

 

[Old Fuff]

Best hope you never get in a spot where you need to do that then I guess.

Been there-done that twice...

No shots fired.

One wonders how anyone survived in those days past before large-cap magazine pistols arrived. Could it be they shot fewer but hit right more often?

 

[bearcreek]

Been there-done that twice...

No shots fired.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I meant, best hope you never get in a situation where you need to "shoot, move, and cover". A situation that was resolvable with no shots fired was not what either Steel Talon or myself were referring to.

One wonders how anyone survived in those days past before large-cap magazine pistols arrived. Could it be they shot fewer but hit right more often?

Wonder if there were those who said the same thing in the 1860's when the cap and ball revolver was replacing the single shot front loader? "What do those young whippersnappers need 6 bullets for? Can't hit what they're aiming at I guess. Back in my day men only needed one shot cause they knew how to shoot."

 

[Chuck R.]

One wonders how anyone survived in those days past before large-cap magazine pistols arrived. Could it be they shot fewer but hit right more often?

And that was after walking to school, uphill (both ways), in the snow.......

It also could be "everybody" had the same 6 shots then had to reload.....

or

Back in those days, multiple assailants weren't that common.

Back to the OPs original question....of target type. I've done some FoF, it sort of gets into the "non-standard" response, but it depends on your role players and the type of system used. With airsoft it was hard sometimes to tell you'd be hit (depending on your clothing) so you might get hit multiple times before "stopping". With simunitions, it worked better.

I still think for the "average" CCW/HD "trainee" with a fixed budget/resources, calibrated reactive steel is about as close as you're going to get to teaching a non-standard response. At least that's what I've seen in most of the classes I've taken.

Chuck

 

[Old Fuff]

And that was after walking to school, uphill (both ways), in the snow. It also could be "everybody" had the same 6 shots then had to reload, or... Back in those days, multiple assailants weren't that common.

Go to THR's Strategies, Tactics and Training sub-forum and you'll find a lot of threads concerning actual real-life shooting incidents involving many different situations and individuals. Exclude those that are law enforcement encounters.

The NRA has both a column and a book titled Armed Citizen that reproduces newspaper accounts concerning civilian vs. thug encounters. It's been running for decades. See what you find.

A lot of the situations some of today's trainers and others propose are more appropriate for combat games and TV scripts then honest reflections of what commonly occurs in real life. They're exceptions of course.

And for the record, When the Old Fuff was a kid he did indeed have to walk both ways to school - in the rain or snow, whatever. He also stopped a three-on-one incident without having to fire a shot.

 

[AKElroy]

Paper targets are a great tool to improve general marksmanship. If we spend too much time shooting paper for score, though, our minds can become conditioned to focusing on the location of the hole, rather than learning to look for the effect of the hole on the opponent.

Have any of you seen targets that effectively simulate "shoot until the threat goes down"?

What characteristics do you think such targets should have?

Here are some of my thoughts:

1) The target should require more than one hit from a pistol round to "go down".
2) The target should have an effective zone that is relatively small, and that can be placed either behind the cardio-thoracic cavity, the pelvis, or the head.
3) The target should allow for objects (such as dummy knives, firearms, etc.) to be set to drop to the ground on any hit.
4) The target must make it possible to dress the bad guy in realistic clothes.
5) Ideally, the target could be shot from various angles, not always just front on.
6) It must be cheap and really easy to repair.

For extra credit, it would be great if the target could move toward, away, or laterally relative to a shooter.

What have you seen? What would you like to see in such a target?

Except for #'s 4&6, live bears would work.

 

[strambo]

He also stopped a three-on-one incident without having to fire a shot.

Anytime an armed citizen thinks deadly force is necessary and then it ends w/o a shot...it is because the criminals chose to quit.

Just about a month ago there was a thread about an elderly man who got into a gunfight with multiple armed home invaders...they didn't quit. He got shot to death (but his wife survived at least.) Could he have survived if he had better and more realistic training? Won't read that story in the "Armed Citizen" column...

Just today I saw a news story about a home invasion in FL, the family armed themselves and even fired a warning shot (not advised.) The criminal, who was unarmed incidentally, ignored the warning shot, broke in anyway and got shot to death.

Sometimes the criminals don't quit, most often when that happens we just see the news report of another victim (and won't ever be in the "Armed Citizen" column...because that isn't what they report). It never made sense to me to choose my gun, or what, or if, or how, I train based on the criminals who quit. I train for the ones who will fight for their lives, if they quit, that is easy.

Carrying a low capacity gun because you probably won't need to fire a shot is no different of an attitude to me than not carrying at all when going to a "safe" part of town because nothing will happen.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with carrying a snub either, but the fight will be what it will be. Maybe there is no fight. Maybe they run at the sight of a gun. Maybe they resist but you can solve it in 5 rds. Maybe they resist, you can't make hits under stress like you thought you could, the bad guys don't collapse like in the movies and you get shot to death. Odds are very good against any of that though...it's good to have chance on your side.

I prefer to train for a threat that I have to shut down physiologically before they quit because that is as bad as it ever gets. Anything less is gravy.

 

[chameleonbear]

Do you mean something like this?

 

[strambo]

I prefer something like this: http://www.letargets.com/content/b-21tc-pht2-b-21e-vital-anatomy-photo-target-version-b.asp

Photo-realistic and armed target with anatomy, but you can't see the anatomy at normal shooting distances. They have a decent variety of targets like this.

The target above is too much like a bulls eye and too little like a human IMO. The large orange spine area is super optimistic as well both in size and the appearance of actually having any control over whether or not you hit it.

The spine is at the rear of the torso and completely obscured. Any slight change in angle changes the required POI and angle to hit it 3D through the torso. Further, the pistol bullet actually has to make it that far with enough energy to do damage. Finally, the bullet has to travel straight through all that bone and tissue (assuming you had the right angle and POI to intersect the spine) w/o deviating. How many gel shots have you seen the bullet deviate in? That is a consistent medium!

So, personally, I completely discount hitting the spine, if you do it will be due to luck, not on purpose. So, I wouldn't want a target to highlight it so much.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Strambo wrote:

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with carrying a snub either, but the fight will be what it will be. Maybe there is no fight. Maybe they run at the sight of a gun. Maybe they resist but you can solve it in 5 rds. Maybe they resist, you can't make hits under stress like you thought you could, the bad guys don't collapse like in the movies and you get shot to death. Odds are very good against any of that though...it's good to have chance on your side.

I prefer to train for a threat that I have to shut down physiologically before they quit because that is as bad as it ever gets. Anything less is gravy.

Strambo, I think that these are exactly the kinds of possibilities that we should be thinking about and training for, if we're serious about armed self-defense.

We spend a lot of time learning to put shots where they will be effective while we're under stress. We learn to keep putting them there as long as the threat exists because we cannot really know beforehand how the bad guy will respond. This is the right foundation.

Building on this foundation, I think that we also need to:

1) better identify and respond appropriately to off-ramps (the bad guy drops his gun, or a bad guy armed with a contact weapon is immobilized and falls to the ground) and to situations that look like off-ramps but really aren't (bad guy with a gun falls to the ground, but continues to shoot),

2) train to make quick decisions in a variety of different situations (the bad guy with a hatchet is running toward me and I know that I put several good rounds into the cardio-thoracic but he's still coming...do I keep going for the chest or shift to the head or pelvis?), and

3) test and develop skills that the scenarios tell us might be needed (like hitting a moving head or pelvis).

This question about targets is just to identify tools that can help toward this end. They may not constitute a perfect simulation, but they're a lot better than going the range every week to punch holes in a stationary piece of cardboard and hoping that that "training" will be good enough when the fight starts.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by luzyfuerza:

We spend a lot of time learning to put shots where they will be effective while we're under stress. We learn to keep putting them there as long as the threat exists because we cannot really know beforehand how the bad guy will respond. This is the right foundation.

Building on this foundation, I think that we also need to:

1) better identify and respond appropriately to off-ramps (the bad guy drops his gun, or a bad guy armed with a contact weapon is immobilized and falls to the ground) and to situations that look like off-ramps but really aren't (bad guy with a gun falls to the ground, but continues to shoot),

2) train to make quick decisions in a variety of different situations (the bad guy with a hatchet is running toward me and I know that I put several good rounds into the cardio-thoracic but he's still coming...do I keep going for the chest or shift to the head or pelvis?), and

3) test and develop skills that the scenarios tell us might be needed (like hitting a moving head or pelvis).

This question about targets is just to identify tools that can help toward this end. They may not constitute a perfect simulation, but they're a lot better than going the range every week to punch holes in a stationary piece of cardboard and hoping that that "training" will be good enough when the fight starts.

As Strambo has pointed out,

Live fire is best for recoil, trigger control and marksmanship, not so great for decision making and not so great for stress.

Shooting at a target won't help at all with learning when to shoot and when to stop.

In the I.C. E PDN training, the instructor sets up a bunch of targets (it really doesn't matter what kind--a rectangular piece of paper slightly smaller than an upper chest will work fine) inside a u-shaped space, and illustrates them with things like a Roman Numeral IX, a ladybug, rabbit ears, etc. The student starts walking in a figure eight pattern. The instructor calls out "rodent" or "three times three"--the student looks around, quickly decides which target is in play (rabbit ears or IX in my examples), turns toward it, draws while moving off line, and shoots.

That's a whole lot better than standing at a podium facing a target that has already been decided upon and that is set at a known distance in a known direction.

That drill comes after a couple of days of layered development of the skills needed to do it well.

http://www.icetraining.us/calendar.html


I suggest the I.C. E. PDN Combat Focus Shooting Course (Gander Mountain Academies have the same thing--they call it Dynamic Focus Shooting.

That's for live fire.

But no live fire at any kinds targets can effectively teach the things you are asking about.

That's where laser simulators and FoF training come into the picture.

For hitting a moving target, for not shooting an unarmed person, or for not hitting a bystander, the laser simulation facilities have hundreds of scenarios. They confirm hits, misses, and good shoots and bad shoots.

Whether an assailant goes down cannot be reliably predicted, and I would not to base my training on the reaction of targets designed to fall.

I do enjoy steel plates, however.

One also has to practice learning to observe,and learning to think. Is he a threat? Do I have a backstop? Which way should I move? COM, or is a head shot required? How do I avoid shooting more than is necessary? Cognitive stuff, and not range practice.

In the mean time, read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Ambush-Training-Unexpected-Defensive/dp/0979150884/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459290078&sr=1-1&keywords=counter+ambush

My review:

The title threw me. It sounded to me like something suited for soldiers entering Tikrit. When I asked the author, Rob Pincus, why he chose that title, he answered me, but I must confess that I was still not entirely sure.

Now I understand. The title says it all.

Think for a minute. When we leave the restaurant for the car, or leave the car for the treck across the parking lot to the supermarket, we are not knowingly heading toward a place where we know we will stand to shoot at a target, which will be located "down range", and we are not going to be given a command to shoot, and we will not be scored by a timer or a number of hits, nor will our score be reduced for misses or hits out of sequences. No! We are not heading out to shoot at all. That is the farthest thing from our minds.

But, should the unlikely and unexpected and worst occur--an ambush--we will have to make some rapid cognitive decisions on our own, observe, react, recognize, and respond. That is not the time to rely upon improvisation. It is the time to utilize basic skills learned in training.

As an attorney from Arkansas likes to put it, a gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

The book goes into depth on psychology, physiological reactions and how to train, and still more on training. There is a little bit on shooting, firearms, and ammunition, but those are not really what the book is about.

I think the book is great, but don't take my word for it. In his foreword, LTC Dave Grossman starts with "You hold in your hands one of the most important book of our kind. First, this a vital, lifesaving resource."

Pincus spends a lot of time discussing the philosophy, the beginnings, the raison d'être, and the evolution, over the last couple of decades, of the I.C. E. Combat Focus Training course. The discussion covers the years in which it was delivered at Valhalla Shooting Cub, when key customers included SOCOM operatives and instructors from both Army and Navy units as all as agents of foreign governments.

Let me be clear that what I think is most important about it is the knowledge it contains that could be useful to ordinary armed citizens going about their daily business, and trying their best to avoid combat.

By the way, the course is now available at several Gander Mountain Academy locations under the title Dynamic Focus Training.

In my opinion, Counter Ambush is a must read, and a must for the bookshelf.

 

[luzyfuerza]

This discussion reminds me of the scene from "Men In Black" where all of the high-speed-low-drag types put zillions of bullets into most of the cardboard aliens, and J bypasses all of these and decides to engage only the little girl with the physics textbook in her arms.

His assessment of the threats was certainly different, but at least he was able to describe why he did what he did.

"But you've got to admit...it was a good shot!"

 

[Kleanbore]

This gives a good idea of what a good simulation facility can provide. You have subscribe to get the PDN premium membership to see the whole thing. It is worth it.

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/simulated-firearms-training-as-a-bystander-during-an-armed-robbery-005279/​

One can then decide whether tp spend the time and money to go somewhere and train in one of these.

People who have tried them say yes. There are all kinds of scenarios.

As Strambo pointed out,

Each tool or training method has some things it does well and others it doesn't. The best training program will be a blend of all.

Video simulators are great for looking real, providing visual and verbal feedback for decision making etc. They are decent for marksmanship, poor for trigger control (unless you are using your gun), poor for recoil management and medium for providing stress.

Live fire is best for recoil, trigger control and marksmanship, not so great for decision making and not so great for stress.

FoF is best for stress and very good for decision making. Not great for raw marksmanship and there are issue with realism in regards to facial expression etc. as everyone is covered in a mask. It is also very resource intensive.

Dry fire is free and best for trigger control, very good for marksmanship, useless for stress or decision making under stress. Blanks can blend some of the best aspects of FoF w/o the need for all the Pro gear, but provide no marksmanship feedback so they are best for extreme CQC practice. "Force on target" (as opposed to "force on force"-using some sort of sim round instead of live, like Simunition FX or CQT) can allow for the use of a much more realistic facility to shoot targets in, even your home w/o needing a live fire capable facility.

One will not find a kind of target that will help teach anything other than live fire basics.

 

[strambo]

I do think the very best reactive targets available (purchased or made) can train some decision making at a rudimentary level and have value. Consider a fully clothed and armed (or not) 3D target that is multi-hit reactive adjustable (and you can't see the hit zones).

This will force you to first make a shoot/no shoot decision then engage. As you shoot and move, unless your marksmanship is perfect, you will then have to make a failure drill type decision on the fly and depending on distance, maybe a H2H strike transition.

Almost nobody trains this way though and no formal square range would let you do it...

I train in the boonies, when I close and strike a target down with a forearm to the throat or heel palm strike, anyone shooting with me for the first time looks at me like I'm from Mars. It never would have occurred to them to do that when their gun is empty and the bad guy is still standing.

In a violent situation what would you do, just stand there? Maybe you have no reload, maybe you'll get stabbed or beaten to death before you can.

This stuff can also be trained dry or airsoft at home where you can do whatever you want.