Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[5shot]

How To Shoot More Effectively In CQB + A New CQB Study

Below are links to a new article.  I would post it here, but it is 2 big.

http://www.pointshooting.com/iwin.htm

http://www.pointshooting.com/iwin.pdf


+ + + + +

Canuk started a separate thread on the recent Force Science Research study and posted the info from the Force Science Research Newsletter.

I 2 get the Newsletter and made a digest of the study which you may find easier to understand and read. A link to it is below.

A key finding of the study is that "those who win lethal assualts do so, in part, because they achieve target acquisition with their firearm in a way that is directly opposite of how most officers are trained."

The info goes on to explain that basically officers are trained to use their sights in the process of acquiring the target and shooting, while experienced police operators basically use Point Shooting which allows them to shoot more quickly and more accurately.

Below is a link to a digest that I made of Part 1 of the series. The full information will be added to the Force Science Research web site in the future.

You can request to be included in the e-mailings of the newsletter at http://www.forcescience.org

Here's the link to the digest:
http://www.pointshooting.com/fsstudy.htm

As to Hock's note re moving and shooting, check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w_kfrQNCyI

If you want to see some short videos of WW II fighter aircraft that i made at our local airport:
http://www.pointshooting.com/flyby.htm

[Canuk]

I think the other thing with really need to take away from that study was to pay attention to the threat ques/body language displayed by the bandit

[shastana]

Thanks for info!  

I'll add that in my humble experience...and reality checks...

-The Target practice: stationary, moving target, and shooter moving.

-The Force practice: airsoft, paintball, sims in 1-1, 2-1, 3-2 drills, etc.

My observations:

-Sighting in just dissolves into the practice somewhere, and sights are not significant in CQB, nor are the exact details on grip, etc.  Moving to cover, flanking, charging in, cover fire, etc are critical to surviving.

-Using the best firearm for the distance, ammo capacity, and ability to quickly reload

-Shooting more effectively means shooting the target before target shoots at you or hits you.  This is a matter of rolling the dice and circumstance.

-You will get shot eventually if you are in enough street gunfights, so body armor, and emergency first aid and equipment nearby is critical to know and have.

-And, men were men back when they just carried a wheel gun (revolver).  Proper respect to guys like Hock who did so by choice.

[Hock]

This is my response to a web ring of many of the famous and infamous gun instructors of the USA. One subject came up was...was there a clinical expert overseeing this Force Science study?....If not, is that acceptable?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hello!
I am a proponent of having, at very least, a clinical psychologist involved with all performance testing. We are often left in the sad shape of training that we find ourselves in today, from a lot of basement, "stop-watch" tests run by high-school drop-outs, or other "experts" unaware of what can affect and distort performance. We are all still suffering from and shrouded under the "ancient", disproven aspects of things like "Hick's Law," "Startle Reflex" and "Heart-Rate Performance Charts," etc. I know having a handy "psych" seems to be impossible all the time, but the lack of professionals present at tests should be mentioned when announcing all serious tests. Lots of near-by colleges!? The results of tests might be valid and interesting, but the involvement of professionals elevates the test results. (Bill Lewinski surely uses these pros, but most don’t)

This subject/debate is really about the transition from paper target shooting to interactive situational shooting. Simply training with simulated ammo in shoot-outs situations with actors solves a lot of these shooting problems. Almost makes them moot. The eye trains itself after interactive situational training. It creates a real world savvy that full-time, paper target shooters will never get. NEVER!

All shootings are highly situational and the training should be so. I believe in this: after a beginner qualifies on the range, then each subsequent firearms training hour should be split 15/45. 15 minutes of live fire familiarization, then 45 minutes of "sims" ammo shooting at moving, thinking people who are shooting back. You will never learn how to really gunfight unless someone is shooting back at you. Period. Deep in our hearts we all know this to be true. And I do know this destroys the current shooting industry and 90% of all shooting businesses and training programs. But it is the utter, simple truth. (And its way cheaper!)

Where and how to look becomes a savvy for a vet? Then replicate that with simulated ammo and actors in situational training. Show the shooter how the common thug draws and shoots, on up to how a distracting "pro" draws and shoots. You won't need $150,000-plus worth of medical gear and film screens. Just shoot at each with sims. Its ugly. But it is the truth truth. And like in football. The same play doesn't always work.

Hock

[Canuk]

nice

[Hock]

Nice but....debate-able to some of the "old timers." A reply to my statement:


"My basic objection to heavy sims training is based on what I observed in the martial arts; those who spent inordinate amounts of time on free-sparring, and not enough on keeping the basics, were a simple, if frustrating experience: That is, they were highly enthusiastic losers in free-sparring against disciplined, basics-trained opponents.
    Almost regardless of style or mental approach, they were a flurry of sloppy, enthusiastic, techniques that were a hazard more from the volume than the skill level. Sims, unless very carefully directed, risks turning into a messy equivalent of lasertag, and risks building bad habits. To keep it on track requires oversight, supervision and work. Just letting students "figure it out with sims" is almost certain to lead to poor results.
"
                                                                                      - Notable Gun Guy


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


My repsonse:

"Would you have all martial people than pass on interactive sparring and just hit pads then? No, of course not. To advance, you recreate combat scenarios. Scenario training is training at the highest level. The key is to reduce the abstract. Range shooting is abstract.
Situational, interactive shooting lessons the abstract. Reduce the abstract. Make it as real as real can get.

You must do both. This the 15/45 minute split idea. After a person "qualifies with basics," then subsequently always do/review the live-fire, basics for 15 minutes and sims for 45 minutes. And no. You don’t just let them figure it out for themselves.

It has to be organized and supervised with a good after action review. The more real the bullet, the more real it seems to get. But, it takes a whole other level of instructor skills. It’s a way higher, more complicated level than paper target, range instruction.
Poor results in sims is the instructors fault for being inept, not the concept of sims shooting. Just like with kick-boxing.

I will use anything to pass on specific, critical, training point to students, even rubber band guns if I have too. It’s an interactive tool. And I have been doing so since 1995. At first, I was ridiculed for "playing with toys." But, attendees fight over the gun standing and on the ground and better understand lines of fire and reality. Now when I teach officers, I may sell up to 50 rubber band guns each session. The new breed "gets it." They get the idea. The idea is, "you are not really learning how to gunfight unless someone is shooting back at you."

Something we all already, deep down, know anyway.

And worse. Sparring is not much like a real street fight either! The basics for one might not fight the basics for another. The definition of sloppy and proper is very subjective to the goal or mission. As I have taught this simulated ammo training since 1995 and with thousands of new and vet students with everything from rubber band guns to the actual, painful Sims, I am really seeing a need to reverse-engineer the definition of "gun-shooting basics," in some cases. Making the basics better fit the situation from the very start. Reality is, or should be the starting point.   

But this is like...another discussion a bit off the original subject.

                                                                                               - Hock

[grlaun]

Yep.  Sims made our active shooter training 2 weeks ago a LOT more real.  People running around trying to shoot you, or hide and you have to find them, sure puts a lot more stress on you than shooting a paper target while getting shouted at - something about not wanting to die/lose...

Lots of review and evaluation - where to step, etc... I got dinged for stepping front of one of our team members while working with a suspect.  I effectively cut off their ability to zero in on the person.  To my defense, I couldn't see sh*t because my mask had fogged up due to the stress of running around and the adrenaline flowing, sure its not much of one, but its all I got...

[Canuk]

extremly good points Hock! sims training isn't random play, it needs to be designed with intent be well thought out and controlled. Almost like chaos we rules and comes down to the instuctor. Wher ehave the skills gone that we learnt as kids? I mean we alll played sports and we didnt just practice slapping the puck or running holding onto a ball, we actually played games in training in the hopes we did better on the ice or the field. I also remeber playing "war" using sling shots and later bb guns. This taught you the difference between cover and concleament and what it was like to be shot at and at 10 years it was as real as it could get!

[Canuk]

Yep.  Sims made our active shooter training 2 weeks ago a LOT more real.  People running around trying to shoot you, or hide and you have to find them, sure puts a lot more stress on you than shooting a paper target while getting shouted at - something about not wanting to die/lose...

Lots of review and evaluation - where to step, etc... I got dinged for stepping front of one of our team members while working with a suspect.  I effectively cut off their ability to zero in on the person.  To my defense, I couldn't see sh*t because my mask had fogged up due to the stress of running around and the adrenaline flowing, sure its not much of one, but its all I got...

masks fog up, its what they do

[Hock]

Part 2 of the Study is done. Check the bolded line...shouldn't surprise free thinkers
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Major new study: How your eyes can cast your fate in a gunfight
Part 1 of a 2-part series

A major new study by the Force Science Research Center for the first time has identified exactly how the "gaze patterns" of officers who are likely to win gunfights differ from those who are likely to lose them. Winners, it is revealed, tend to anticipate an emerging threat sooner, shoot to stop it faster and more accurately, and make fewer errors in judgment because of the unique way in which they watch a potential attacker's body as a deadly confrontation unfolds.
A key finding:

Those who win lethal assaults do so, in part, because they achieve target acquisition with their firearm in a way that is directly opposite of how most officers are trained.

"This unique study shows that winning a gunfight involves more than just issues of action and reaction times," FSRC's executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski told Force Science News."

Hock

 

[Hock]

Interesting to reread.