ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Optics Planet Discount Code: HRFUNK (5% off your purchase)
HOP Munitions Discount Code: HRFUNK10 (10% off your purchase)
For T-Shirt info, contact: Warbirdbunker.com
Join this channel to get access to exclusive members only content:
/ @hrfunk
I'm a retired police officer and like you I've seen several styles of targets in my day. I was also a hand-to-hand self-defense instructor so scenarios were also a subject of interest. I believe it is a good idea to divide classes into two groups and to have trainees switching places between good guy and bad guy. This allows trainees to see the situations from both perspectives. This helps the officer to better evaluate a situation and teaches them how to de-escalate and not escalate a situation.
As for targets, as we all should know the basics are the critical foundation for any advanced training. In that respect, the bulls-eye target is a good starting point when training from scratch. But once accuracy at a reasonable speed is achieved it is time to advance to more realistic targets. I said targets (plural) because I believe using multiple types of realistic targets can help with that static target problem. I also believe the targets should be 3/4 or even 1/2 size in some cases. We also need static targets that help to train proper lead on a moving target. In other words, show where to aim if the target is moving right or left. I've seen cases where officers emptied their weapons at a moving target and all the rounds hit behind the offender.
One officer took out an entire city block of plate glass windows in the downtown area. Luckily no one was hurt. The chief was not happy.
Excellent video. I love the history.
Thanks, excellent discussion so far.
How the heck did this subject become this interesting? Some history along with pros and cons along with the evolution of various training programs.
Good job HR.
Thanks ED! I’m glad you liked it.
@@hrfunk Had I thought a bit more about it I wouldn't have posted it. Most of your subs already know these things. I didn't. For decades I used a target printed on printer paper at 30 feet. The goal was to hit the paper with the 1s't two shots. Cold. After those 1s't two I figured I was a goner. That's why I kidded you about the ''tack driver''. All warmed up and closer.
Duck hunt was nintendo, I loved that game as a kid.
TH-cam must not like the subject matter again 🙄
I think TH-cam just doesn't like me!
@@hrfunk they dont like me either chief but i still enjoy the videos premier or not
@@hrfunk You Tube is a group of woke liberals, you know...
They dont like any of us that enjoy 2a
Thank you H.R. for your discussion and experience on this important training subject.
thanks
good points you make and like your vitals paper targets where you take a little time to hit them them vitals rather then to fast missing. force on force you know your safe so you tend to come out of cover more then real life and no way to know if person would be incapacitated in real life when your shots hit, hard to clearly define a standard of incapacitation, also situtational awareness is higher then real life situations because you know its coming at some point so no surprise where in real life all of us at some point wont be at our maximum situtational awareness. For targets my combat standard is 4 inches for a kill zone some like A zone on a competition target, some like 6 inches, i like 4 inch circles, cans, water bottles, these are about the size of the heart and can simulate head shots to, vitals are what i think are best that show on paper, the speed crowd doesnt like vitals because they dont look fast and have to actually slow it down a little and hit the vitals not just quickly hit a big steel or paper torso target and transition to the next leaving first target wich by real world situations would not be considered incapacitated or a possibility they can return fire being not hit in those vitals, competition shooting organizations dont like my views on targets and standards but not just me, other competition shooters who agree with me in that there are a lot of flaws, a shooting organization does get credit for things that make sense but they are not open to making changes in flaws that could make a shooter in the real world make mistakes even though the sport with its fast speed makes people think that shurely it wouldnt be a problem in a real gun fight but is, lots to list but a few even now ken hackathorn admits carried over from competition shooting, wich is you can miss A zones and still win competition with just speed shooting and running fast, this means in real life the vitals are missed not incapacitating, for example you have 3 targets and first target doesnt have hits that would incapacitate you now transition to 2nd and 3rd when the first target could still be shooting at you since transition was made to quickly to beat a timer, so being fully exposed out in the open to 3 targets with no cover and all shooting back, makes speed a bad thing sometimes if your rushing out of cover to fast out in the open rather then slicing the pie slower and having at least 2 good shots to A zone first before you can move to the 2nd and 3rd, competition targets are just to big and allow many to shoot in a way that it not optimum being just your speed alone you can sacrifice accuracy and still win, ken hackathorn admited himself it accuracy first then speed, but the sport allows poor accuracy that if your time is smoking fast it makes up for your lack of accuracy but in a real gun fight now your mind is thinking about that timer and you naturally come out of cover to fast and get shot, law enforcement calls it staying in the pocket remaining with good cover as you need it, not rushing out in the open like a mind set that one could have doing competition shooting where empasis is beating a old timer score rather then using cover and making good hits limiting our exposure from being out in the open by carefully slicing the pie clearing and incapacitating only one threat at a time, we know being hasty to come out of cover kills, dennis tueller has said 70% of police officers get killed by not using cover or comming out to quickly and the private sector its very close to the same percentage, so this is why me and many competition shooters using good logic have noticed all though its a fun sport there are some flaws that can effect someone in real shooting situtations because what ever we practice over and over again or habits follow us into a real defense situation, for example if a competition shooter is used to A zone misses while knowing sometimes speed can make up for accuracy so they can win, then in a real gun fight they will shoot the same making quick transitions on a few threats but not fully incapacitating the first being out in the open with maybe two more attackers with guns making it a self ambush for rushing out of cover or not staying in the pocket as law enforcement says, if we have 1 piece of cover and 3 targets we must treat the targets as if they will all shoot back, this is why we can only incapacitate 1 target at a time with a good incapacitation standard before moving to the next target, even Robert keller special ops said there is no flow to a gun fight nor a nice and neat every target in a row, they move and shoot back, he said the same in that you can only kill one person at a time not being out in the open double tapping 3 targets like you see many do, if there is no cover its the same with 3 targets you can only kill one at a time, the fantasy of getting all 3 by a simple double tap is not realistic but what we can do is double tap and make shure bullet hits a vital rather then missing vitals double tapping all 3 with lightning speed, so hitting vitals with combat accuracy wich is not precision accuracy but that amount of accuracy to hit a vital, so a good drill with 3 targets is only expose your self enough to get 2 hits to a vital while not exposimg your self to the other 2 targets, once say 2 shots to the heart or a 4 inch circle then transition to the 2nd and 3rd repeating the same good hits as the first, doing this say from 3 to 10 yards, naturally as distance increases it will be hard to keep rounds with in 4 inches or the heart but we still make the attempt even though us or pistol doesnt have the accuracy, the good part is if we are shooting in a situation over 10 yards we should be able to find cover, for police the same thing, the difference is a private citizen can go from cover to cover in reverse and extract themselves from the situtation, police must chase and put cuffs on so they are more likely using cover going forward unlike a private citizen who mostly should be going backwards while defending extracting themselves from that situtation, a sheep dog role a private citizen must consider consequences for helping or in helping causing more deaths if not helping using the right tactics and good decision making wich is hard to do when you dont fully know the details of the situation, for example off duty police making trying to make a arrest and you making the mistake thinking he is the bad guy so these situations can happen if you dont know full detail about the fight or the shooting situation
Great topic that I've never seen covered before. Very interesting. I'm glad you are covering it.
Thank you Donald!
Here it is, thx
Can't wait for part 2. The B27 is quite large, but it and the scoring rings were meant for 50 yards.
Teaches you to aim small on a large target. X ring is too low though
Thanks for putting together this informative video! I’d like to see a target that had scoring areas where the scores would be proportional to the effect on the target. For example, the pelvic girdle is an area I have never seen as a scoring hit on a target, but I know that this is an effective hit area, especially since it is rarely covered with armor and includes parts that are vital to continue an attack, such as the hip joints and major arteries. I can’t wait for part 2! 😃
" For example, the pelvic girdle is an area I have never seen as a scoring hit on a target,"
The Ohio OPOTA qualification target uses a girdle section as a scored hit.
@@papimaximus95 Why yes, indeed it does! Thank you for letting me know! 😊 Much appreciated 😊
When Dirty Harry was competing he hit the Hostage ,he got a Bolo Badge....first time he lost....
I will say force n force has no drawbacks it’s so good n humbles you quick
Mr. Funk, this may be your best video for many reasons. Confidence and amount of information are two. Focusing on targets, I have two comments. 1. Black aim points provide no contrast for black iron sights, ie targets sights. So, I buy the light blue or white aim point paper targets. 2. I love steel targets. The audible feedback, reusability, and ease of painting over hits and a red cirvle aim point is much easier and more fun than paper targets. I get my steel targets from Quality Targets. Sure they are heavy and lots of walking and dealingn with spray paint cans, but they are my favorite way over paper targets. I do have my own range at home, and the club range rarely has someone else there, or just a few people that I know. The club shoots knockdown steel targets every Saturday, something I greatly look forward to for the fellowship with other shooters.
This is an outstanding topic! It's nice to have options to hone or maintain particular skills, but we all need the proper tools (or targets) for the task.
When I first started in law enforcement we had a setup where a movie was shown in the indoor range and we were using our duty weapons. When we fired the movie would stop and a light would shine where our bullets had hit.The problem was becoming familar with the movie and knowing which scenarios were the ones to fire in. Ishot another course in Nurenberg Germany where there was merely a six inch dot of light moving in a random pattern at twenty five meters that would stop when the gun was fired and light would shine where your bullet hit; great for accuracy but not very realistic.
Chief, At one point when I was coordinating the patrol rifle program at my police department, the commander of the training section and I decided that we should use anatomical targets similar to the use you used at the beginning of your presentation. When we submitted the requisition to the quartermaster to get the funding, the Chief was there and asked to see the targets, so when we pulled an example up on the computer, he and the quartermaster nearly had a cow. I thought they were upset about the cost but the Chief said to me that we couldn't use those targets. I asked him why and he said that if one of officers was involved in a shooting and when we're sued, we would be held liable because since there was anatomical diagrams on the target, it would create the appearance that we're wanting to shoot people. The training coordinator and I looked at each other dumbfounded and then remarked that we are training our officers to shoot people. The quartermaster then told me that we're not shooting people we're "enhancing our ability to take them into custody." Needless to say we didn't get the targets and used the standard Ga. SQC targets.
You may not be surprised to hear that I cover this very type of thinking in part two of this video. It’s unfortunate that you had to deal with that.
Sir sorry I missed it live but I’ll watch it today ( was at a Ringo Starr concert 👍)
Hello HR. Good video, waiting for part two. While competing at Second Chance in Michigan I got to run through a course set up by John Farnam. He had 2 sided turning targets with cartoonish figures. A woman with a purse or a handgun,a man with a shotgun or an umbrella etc. They had stiff plastic inserts in the vital area to register hits. Some would go down with one hit and some would take 2 or 3 to neutralize. A lot of fun and quite challenging.
That sounds fun and interesting. Thanks for the comment John!
Excellent video, Chief.
I look forward to Part Two.
You raised some very valid points here.
The one about role players being too aggressive can lead to the assumption that all bad guys will act the same. The one time I have drawn on someone he stopped all aggression immediately and raised his hands. Assuming and being conditioned to the opposite can....you know the rest.
As far being able to tell who shot which holes in the target, when fighter pilots used to shoot at a towed sleeve each pilot fired rounds that were dipped in a different paint color. Maybe that would work on the police range.
And with the thug target, I have seen many times the fixation on the weapon rather than on the correct place on the person..
To your first point, you are correct. Training students to fire in every scenario regardless of the suspects behavior is a recipe for disaster. This is something to few trainers consider when formulating scenario based training.
They need something painful for training like a hard paintball that may inspire more realistic behavior.
I agree. Unfortunately workers comp claims, and sick time, tends to cause administrators to choose other forms of training.
@@hrfunk to me that's play time. I don't like being shot with things but I'll tolerate the pain if it improves my abilities. Pain is an excellent motivator. Just keep the eyes mouth and jewels safe lol.
Agreed!
Great info. Thanks. Need to shoot some of the 3d targets and video. I’d be interested in seeing that.
Some very good information to consider for training.
As an instructor you are gifted H.R..👍🏼
Thanks Logica!
Hi Howard I perfer 3D life size targets and anatomy targets. Outstanding topic the human is 36 " from the waist to the top of the head.and 18" from armpit to armpit .and thats the target I use with Pistol , Rifle , Shotgun.Outstanding Review.
Thanks Rick! Part 2 will be up tomorrow morning.
Thanks HR really enjoyed the discussion about the best targets to use …looking forward to part 2 👍👍.
Thanks Lance! Part 2 goes live on Saturday morning.
When my National Guard unit deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom II, I took several copies of Grossman's "On Killing" with me and tried to interest the rest of my company -- but failed to get anybody else to read it.
TRAINFIRE was mentioned in "On Killing." The silhouette target was used in the American military as early as the 1880's--but there's cycles of training for war and then switching to a kinder and gentler peacetime garrison mentality. Photo-realistic humanoid targets were part of training for some law enforcement agencies (the FBI and Shanghai Municipal Police used them).
I also took some anatomy mannikins to the Sandbox with me for dry fire training--to simulate the three dimensions of the human body and to demonstrate strike points for baton, knife, field expedient weaponry and empty hands. The idea was sending a bullet THROUGH intervening clothing and tissues to destroy organs, bone, blood vessels and nerve clusters. I was operating on a shoestring.
The Army decided to send National Guard and Army Reserve through a three-month pre-deployment training that included firearms simulators. One of the problems with troops deployed to the Global War on Terror was the kinder and gentler peacetime garrison mentally. Soldiers sent to the Middle East--even active-duty infantry--were not given weapons immersion training and were not conditioned to bearing arms. I did manage to squeeze in some knife fighting training--my company had no pistols issued. We were Signal troops and often on isolated radio relay posts and on our own. Fortunately, even the Iraq-based units were far enough in the rear that we didn't get shot at. I didn't have a high regard for the force-on-force training mainly because it turned into a game of cops-and-robbers with the instructors winning every scenario. Better than nothing, and using paint ball or Air Soft did present "realistic" human targets, conditioning soldiers to shoot at other humans. A decisive advantage US forces had even with flawed training was that the training was realistic enough so that US forces essentially had already survived their first several battles.
Training is synthetic experience. Corpses don't learn--you have to survive the training. Training by real gunfights kills off too many trainees, and then there are the legal liabilities, and survivors of real gunfights don't emerge unscathed. Simulated combat also focuses on the rarer shooting situations. Firing a gun in anger is a unique event that most people will never experience. Shooting at distances of 25 yards or more with pistols does happen, but most shots that hit are around 10 yards (at least for police). Some shooters train only at 7 yards but do a round count of a police qualification table--as much as 20% of the shots will be at 25 yards. It's harder to hit the more distant ranges and in the bad old days firing for qualification annually was all the live-fire training agencies provided. Paper targets are useful primarily because paper targets show where the misses landed. In the 1942 classic, "Shooting to Live" the Shanghai Municiple Police reportedly fired their first shots within two yards of a target that was eight feet wide by eight feet tall, with a standing Chinese bandit centered laterally and with his feet on the ground. The target illustrated in "Shooting to Live" was a realistic drawing including a face--and holding a gun.
Train by steps--crawl, walk, run.
Thanks for your presentation on realistic defensive shooter targets.
My pleasure. Thanks for a great comment and thanks for your service to our country.
I got to be an individual that helped my local police department in swat training. I was deluged with phone calls and complience. I was out of my element as I am a reserve officer. Mostly I complied with the officers . The next time I get to do this, I`ll try harder to make myself more aggressive, only to make it more realiistic to the regular officers.
It's a very difficult role to play, and it is crucial to realistic training. Give it a lot of thought, and decide how you would act if you were a criminal in an actual situation.
Weapon fixation saved my life in one incident [hidden tire iron] [probably], and the life of an A-hole that pulled out a B-B gun from under his seat in another.
Doing stupid stuff can get you in a world of hurt.
I’m glad it worked out in your favor!
Great video. I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough presentation.
Thanks Mario!
I for one find the video and the topic very interesting. In qualifying for church security we use the qit-99 FBI Q target. not the best but does have some good points. The two areas for more effective shot placement? Looking forward to the second video in this series .
Thanks Theodore! Part 2 will be up tomorrow morning.
My ohio ccw course required us to shoot; our targets were paper plates. So hopefully any villain in ohio is taping paper plates to their chest. The instructor asked if I slept with the gun since all my bullets made a nice clover leaf. Good discussion points funk.
Thank you!
Really enjoyed this topic. This has been something that I have been thinking about a lot lately in my training and practice. I think about self defense scenarios that I’m likely to see such as home invasions or shopping center parking lots and training to address those potential threats. Realization that in my suburban environment, four-legged predators are unlikely but the two-legged ones are ever present. These are human beings that wouldn’t hesitate to kill me or my family. Training with realistic targets makes complete sense to help build the combat mindset needed to survive a gunfight. Thanks again
You’re most welcome. I’m glad you liked it!
I find the 3d shape of mannequins a positive, especially when the height is adjustable to have a crouching version. If detailed feedback is needed paper can be added behind and in scenarios the instructor may change things up telling if it was effective or not. Exactly based on the importance in training regarding Grossman we can't even have anything bowling pin shaped on a civilian range.
I might look for another range.
I like that "milk bottle" target too.
Fantastic video! Thank you very much. Semper Fi.
You’re welcome Troy. Semper Fi!
👍 looking forward to part 2
Scenario training isn't good enough for the modern tactical instructor, they prefer the more impressive sounding 'force on force' training.
I know. I think that name is childish. The training, on the other hand, can be beneficial if conducted correctly.
I think he has made some really good points...I wonder what types of targets he will suggest 🤔
Stay tuned. Part 2 will be up tomorrow morning.
Good video, enjoyed the role play talk. Don’t hear about it much.
Thank you!
Excellent video. Looking forward to part two. Unfortunately many gun ranges don't allow a humanoid paper target as though the ultimate purpose of the handgun is for dove hunting!
The rules implemented by some ranges baffle me. Thanks for watching Mike!.
The FBI target is an obese bowling pin. I am surprised that no one has protested that...
@@hrfunk I was on an indoor range that insisted on their targets. All bull variations. I asked why and was told "Psycho Police Chief." But they did allow rapid fire, and if you paid the instructors fee, you could work from a sandbagged area from the holster, instruction was good too. It was somewhere in KY many years agone.
Howard. I totally agree
Thanks Paulo!
I’m a Q target guy.
👍
Great job delivering this presentation!
Thanks Chris!
Very informative! Can't wait for Part 2!
Great video and looking forward to part 2!
Thanks Chad!
I think it does make a big difference shooting at bullseye circles compared to a human form type of target. The 3d 'Ivan' targets we shoot in basic training were pretty great. I can see they put some thought into it using the psychological principle of conditioned response. Ivan comes up, shoot, hit, Ivan goes down... Instant gratification.
As well as developing a conditioned response so as to mitigate any thought process.
@@hrfunk 👈👍
I’ll get this book thank you
I think you’ll find it to be most informative.
This great stuff. Keep this stuff up!
Will do John. Thanks for watching!
Good video H.R., I agree that the older paper targets scoring zones are only good for target shooting, verses aiming and hitting the high thoracic area.
(FYI: The "crouching bad guy" target came from the Federal Protective Service)
As a firearms and D.T. instructor and trainer, scenario based testing and training is my favorite technique, using primarily simunitions or blanks. But I can also see the benefit of paintballs.
- As long as the scenario AND the role-players are realistic.
I find anatomically correct self-healing 3D targets also very beneficial, especially when adding a t-shirt for realism.
And yes, I too have the scars on my hands and forearms!!
The role players make or break scenario training. It’s also important to have clearly conceived training goals in each scenario so the performance of those undergoing the training can be accurately critiqued.
@@hrfunk
Exactly!!
The crouching thug target was originated by NYPD . Folklore is that the face and build was based upon a particular well known NYPD Instructor .
But yes , it became very popular , and widely adopted .
thank you for the video, informative as usual, but i still think anatomical targets are not needed - i just want to be able to put shots as precisely as possible on whatever the target is at whatever angle, head/heart/spine/etc - i mentioned in my last post that i like a simple paper plate target with an orange dot placed in the middle, its easy to see how close the shot is to where i was aiming - i can place the plate on a pendulum or wire "slide" to simulate target in motion - a shot that is close on the target that may have done damage if it was real life has no relevance in the training as training is to learn to place shots accurately, scores not needed as either the shot was either accurate or it wasnt - i never thought about the hesitation factor but i still think there be better ways to learn to deal with it than an anatomical target - if you disagree with my ideas please let me know as i am always up to learning something i am doing wrong so i can improve - thanks again for all your effort at making quality videos
My pleasure. Thank you for watching! To answer your question, targets that accurately depict a human being might not be necessary for you. Then again, why do you suppose you prefer paper plates to something that looks like a potential adversary? The psychological aversion to using deadly force against another person manifests itself in many ways.
@@hrfunk thats something to think about, thanks for reply
Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! 😀
Coming in 4 minutes!
5:00 , Or at the very least incapacitating them through the use of deadly force. The deadly word in your sentence seems off of your intent . ? ???
It was quite intentional. "Deadly force" applies to any use of a firearm or other means which might bring about the death of an individual. It does not depend upon whether or not that individual actually dies.
@@hrfunk when i was studying martial arts i learned the intent was not to kill but to stop an attacker, its just unfortunate that the techniques used to stop someone often can be fatal - i think the same with firearms, the intent should be to stop an attack as fast as possible, its just unfortunate that it often ends in being fatal - so the term using deadly force may not be accurate, at least for me, as i just want to stop someone from hurting me or someone else - i need a better term!
@@sweet.dreams At the risk of sounding redundant, I think again this speaks to the psychological version to using deadly force. That is perfectly normal, but it can be problematic in a defensive encounter.
My preferred target is the IDPA target. It is mono colored with no discernible "bullseye" at a distance but still clearly has scoring markings up close. Helps you to shoot high center chest. If not that, then a simple 9" Walgreens white paper plate (has a 6" inner circle) taped to the backer board.
I like the birch wood Casey 3d torso target
Can you tell where you hit it?
Yes you can. I patch mine with 2” masking tape , and can get about 400 rounds in it before I replace it
Anyone else remember the Quelle System? Geoff Who is curious.
That one doesn’t sound familiar to me Geoff.
@@hrfunk As I recall, it was from Paris Theodore, before his mysterious demise. Cross reference The ASP modified S&W Model 39 and lawsuits by Chic Gaylord over holsters and George Nonte over debts. Had various cartoon style body positions on the front and relative vital organs outlined on the back for scoring.
So much for the "mysterious death" theory in the magazine I read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Theodore#The_Quell_system
In some Asian conflicts, wars, were not women and children trained to shoot the perceived enemy , to kill them. Encountering those soldiers could certainly end the opposing soldiers life. Do not rules of engagement and saving ammo money through three round bursts dwell in a soldiers mind in some way ? In the at home civilian realm it is possible for women and minors to be armed and willing to kill because their morality / mental state is off of rational .
That somewhat possible rare encounter could end the other person.
I'm sorry Mike, I don't understand what you're asking.
@@hrfunk you seem to be talking about just defending ourselves from male attackers and not armed women and minors. The mind play regarding men shooting women or minors with firearms will be more severe than men shooting men. ??
@@mikewallace8087 Probably. I’m going to discuss that further in Part 2.
One of my acquaintances was a former Narc . He ended up killing suspects in three incidents all within 30 days .
The third turned out to be 15yo , with an unloaded shotgun . All were Justified , but after the 15yo , he had enough , and resigned .
After 30 years as a firearms instructor I still have a plethora of targets sitting in my garage. I like humanistic style. And yes on killing and his seminars are spot on...
Great show, looking forward to part two.
We used the big B27 when I first started in the early 70s but shot at 50 yards too. Then the half size blue target out to 25 yards. On the pistol team using S&W Model 52 .38 Special Wadcutter ammo shooting 1 handed at 25 yards it was the round bullseye. Used some others as well, man with gun maybe in his hand comes to mind. IPSC Brown targets when I did the combat pistol circuit in Florida. Oh yes we augmented actual firearms training with a very good simulator that showed where we hit or missed. Our simulator used the issue pistol and it made the slide operate with recoil. Also used military simulator with 1911 and M16 on our US Naval Base NTC ORLANDO which was fun. We used simunitions too wore protection and roll players with specific scenarios. Training Officers monitored this so not to get out of control etc and stay with the program. We had moving targets at our range for live fire and move and shoot training with the movers being a part of the qualification.
That sounds like a great training program Sergeant Major!
Very innovative. Also in police academy (I was an instructor) we had an old school ,(pvt) with houses and buildings and did scenarios for the boots. Long 15 hour days 3 days in a row.
@SGT MAJ Trapp Until someone has conducted training for that length of time, they will never know how draining it can be.
@@hrfunk well in your early 30s we managed but it was TOUGH. WE later had a shoot house too we used as did SWAT that was fun and the scenarios changed you would enter a room and nothing but desks and chairs but the next room (multiple) were targets some worse cloths to make it look real. Now all of what I mentioned was progressive over my career. We had an outstanding training staff at the range but not at the beginning, just the B27 but to get your master pin 3 consecutive 98 or better at 50 yards. If you DID NOT QUALIFY you were relegated to a desk unarmed and had to attend remedial until you shot a qualification score. This standard was when we had a fine range staff. Also given 100 rounds to shoot per person. I would take my people out on training days and we would shoot various drills.
Thank you for your time and effort spent on this series.
I've always felt that target shooting is to improve marksmanship and speed of accurate sight alignment, but serves no real purpose beyond that.
As you mentioned, self defense is a mostly psychological exercise, and training has to include stressful situations that test one's reactions.
I have a few friends who engage in paintball exercises as well as target shooting, and their results are impressive. Of course, they know ahead of time that their live training is non lethal, so there's a "bulletproof" aspect involved, as you also mentioned, but their reactionary skills and quick decision making is very sharp.
Not many ranges allow much more than slow target fire on stationary targets, so my draw and present training is all done at home without live ammo.
Looking forward to part 2.
The subconscious, the engrained basics are usable under extreme stress. Same for building your trust in your ability at some range. A lot of the static skill diminish, but the smaller your group is, the less it'll enlarge. 2-5 times but not much more unless one really falls apart. One can't tell until it happens how one is affected. The best on the range can freeze / later lacking memory.
A lot of expert explaining I didn't hear before. Interesting.
Thanks Marc!
@@hrfunk Catching up. Rather busy lately and on top, internet connection issues.
@@marcjacobs423 What is your fuel situation like? I've been listening to the reports concerning the pipeline. I'm concerned about how that's going to affect everyone living in Europe.
@@hrfunk At this moment, absurd prices for gas and electricity but no shortage yet. Fuel supply ok so far. At European prices of course.
@@marcjacobs423 I hope they get that thing fixed soon. Take care.
Very interesting Howard!
Thanks!
You’re welcome Cliff. Thanks for watching.
I like the B27 target, but the 9 ring I think is too large, and also I agree with your other criticisms. For bullseye type shooting or trying to keep shots within the 10 ring when firing more rapidly, I think the target has merit.
I think more realistic targets, ideally ones that are "shoot and see" or "splatter" type targets that give you instant feedback are probably better.
I guess the 9 ring suitability has to do with the distance and speed involved .
The thing about " instant visual feedback " with splatter targets , etc is the shooter can potentially be distracted by looking for the splatter , and trying to chase it .
Felons usually don't wear neon splatter T shirts ( or have visable aiming points or scoring rings ) . Part of defensive training is to aim at center of available mass ( or other prefered real life aiming point , ie upper 1/3 of torso , pelvis , whatever ) .
Chief I think that’s a great introduction as to the why’s and what’s of your selection of targets.
Thank you!
Well, Howard, this was an especially valuable video for me, simply becuase it forced me to think about a LOT of things I have more or less ignored.
For example, I have never considered any psychological reluctance to engage another human lawfully, probably becuase of my military training and lengthy service and becuase I fundamentally have no sympathy for felons (in my mind, they risk death and serious injury when they commit crimes). I truly don’t know if such psychological reluctance would apply to me . . . I’m guessing it wouldn’t, but that might be arrogantly delusional.
Similarly - and I’m only considering the legally armed civilian, not law enforcement officers or protective service personnel - I’ve never really considered “target type.” I have long used 3x5 inch index cards (aim small, miss small) and I drill for only four scenarios: (a) the home intruder; (b) the ATM, alleyway, etc. mugger; (c) the carjacker; and (d) the mass shooter (theatre, church, mall, cafeteria, etc.). When I say “drill,” it’s really much more thinking about, weighing options, considering non-violent alternatives, and evaluating when I should refrain from firing. Perhaps foolishly and erroneous, I’ve always believed that the ability to hit a target (under a large variety of circumstances) with considerable accuracy would probably be the key to terminating the threat very quickly.
I invite others to comment on this post. I suspect I may have been presumptuously ignoring some critical things. However, I do feel reasonably prepared and I am quite vigilant.
In the past few decades, the military has done a much better job of preparing personnel for the reality of combat. I suspect you (like me) would have little difficulty employing righteous force in defense of self or innocent persons. My explanation of Colonel Grossman‘s work was extremely abbreviated in the video. Another point he makes with regard to military training is necessity for instilling discipline within the troops to only utilize deadly force when necessary. Though military personnel are “trained killers“ the accompanying discipline instilled during training allows us to function as perfectly normal human beings (unless circumstances require otherwise). I worry more for the uninitiated armed citizen than the properly trained military or law enforcement veteran. How often do you hear people say something like “if possible I want to shoot them in the leg.“ This is another indication of that psychological aversion to using deadly force. It is normal and quite commendable, but when faced with a deadly threat it could prove to be lethal. If you have not read Colonel Grossman’s book, you might find it to be quite interesting.
Thank you, Howard, I’ll try to reserve it at our library now.
I saw one target in the 25 minute video, A huge waste of time, I'm outta here,
There will be more targets in part 2.