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 imagine after those guys get their picture taken for the target, they are instructed to never wear that outfit again... can you imagine practicing over and over on one of these guys and your in the grocery store turn down an aisle and there he is! pointing a can of beans at you. react!
Yes, there is a big difference between fighting and surviving using a gun and competing with a gun. I am glad you pointed it out so well. Most of the people I hear, see or talk to, are not aware of or fully understand the differences, ending up making wrong choices and having a false sense of being ready for and survive a fight.
Thank you
You’re welcome. I may address this topic again in the near future.
Scoring rings had this purpose--determining who was able to hit their marks better. That's it.
Oversized targets have two purposes: build confidence and get as many people "qualified" as possible. When training working dogs (military K9s) the dog always wins every training session. Make the dog work for victory, but the dog wins. Success (even artificial) instills confidence. As for qualifying people, how many would be qualified if they were required to hit one-inch targets at 100 yards and score 100 hits out of 100 shots? The standards used to be 60% was qualified, 70% was marksman, 80% was sharpshooter and 90% was expert--the percentage was a percentage of maximum possible score. Early police departments didn't have qualification standards until after World War One, and then it wasn't really mandatory until the Sixties. Target size had to be large enough so that the average semi-trained law enforcement officer could achieve a qualifying score at distances that used to be 50 feet (some departments mandated training to 50 yards). Once training became mandatory, distances were standardized and fifty-shots at 7 yards, 15 yards and 25 yards slow fire became the standard. Some police departments now train as close as one yard, but most don't get any closer than 3 yards and the closer distances see more shots than the 25-yard line. It's all about checking off boxes--marksmanship is confused with gunfighting.
Mission creep intrudes--now most departments mandate 70% scores to qualify and several mandate 80% scores. Instructors are supposed to get more than 90% scores. A few pundits scream "why not 100% scores?" Okay--put all targets at five feet, make those targets eight feet wide by eight feet tall, and hits anywhere on the target count. Everybody gets 100%--aren't you satisfied with perfection? Targets define "perfection" in marksmanship.
I use paper targets to show me where my misses went.
Marksmanship standards get in the way of developing gunfighting skills. Trainers try, but first they must check off the training boxes, use a minimum of resources, and then document the training in such a way that their agency can beat a civil suit from either innocent bystanders injured during a gunfight, by their own sworn law enforcement officers claiming "inadequate training," or surviving felons whining "excessive force" or other misconduct.
There’s a lot of truth in your comment. I mentioned in the video that competition and qualification are not adequate for preparing individuals to prevail in a gunfight.
@@hrfunk I took the shortcut method when studying the pivotal 5 April 1970 shootout at Newhall, California--I have several printed accounts and watched some police training videos on the subject. No primary sources were harmed during my research--but the two failed bank robbers were inferior in training and firepower by the standards of the day compared to the four California Highway Patrolmen that the robbers killed in under five minutes shortly before midnight at a truck stop between I-5 and Old Highway 99. Officer Gore had fired a perfect combat firing score as a cadet and had scored 290/300 on the PPC and two of the other dead officers were "really good shots." At the time, the mighty Colt Python in .357 Magnum was the world's best fighting pistol and the Smith and Wesson Model 19 was no slouch either--even the Colt Officers Model Match .38 Special revolver had a six-inch barrel and was stuffed with Super Vel cartridges. In contrast there were two armed civilians caught up in the fray. Gary Kness managed to hit one of the bank robbers with Officer Alleyn's Model 19 despite never having fired it before with the only shot Kness got to fire--and Kness did that after attempting to fire Alleyn's empty Remington 870 shotgun and getting just a CLICK. Daniel Schwartz hit one of the robbers despite firing blindly through the side of Schwartz's own camper from the inside--Schwartz was bluffed out of his camper and savagely pistol-whipped, but the robber was too wounded (shot by Kness) and too frightened to finish off Schwartz. Officer Alleyn is credited with inflicting superficial buckshot injuries on both of the bank robbers, but the two "untrained" civilians seem to have done better. Only one of the bank robbers had formal firearms training--a stint in the Marines.
By the standards of the day, the four dead California Highway Patrol officers had undergone the finest police training in the country and all of them had demonstrated their skills--and their sidearms and riot shotguns were regarded as the best gunfighting tools. This midnight shootout happened 52 years ago, and police training and equipment has evolved.
Your suggestions for using different training targets is the result of your training and experience.
Boxers, wrestlers, karate students with years of training and match experience are formidable, but there have been a lot of these expert athletes murdered in bar fights or while being mugged. Often, when their murderers were found, the dead experts far outclassed their killers because the match rules were not followed and there was no umpire supervising their deathmatch.
I agree. I almost used the example of a martial artist or a boxer in a street fight. There are certainly skills and techniques that carry over but they are not a guarantee of victory.
Hi HR! Clint Smith recommended to start aiming for the crotch because of the proliferation of body armor. Shooting someone in center mass may not be a effective hit but shooting them in the crotch will definitely get their attention! I was wondering what you think of this.
assuming they are not wearing a Level 3 Armor Cup
I think you’re trying to strike an even smaller target than the head in a dynamic situation where it may well be moving very rapidly.
@@hrfunk I admire Clint Smiths style and his reputation but I have to agree with you, the crotch is definitely a small area to aim at.
Might be if pressed, Clint Smith would say things like,
...when using a shotgun, or
...if the target is mostly static, or
...when your firearm is a rifle caliber semi auto.
I agree with our host,, it's a small area. However, femoral arteries also are in the same area, so I get Clint Smith's point.
That holster looks really comfortable. May I ask who made it/what model it is? Thanks!
It was made by Craft holsters.
@@hrfunk Thanks! Just out of curiosity since you obviously don't have a problem with a cross draw holster, how would you respond to people that say that it allows bad guys to simply reach over and take your gun much easier than other types? Thanks again!
Lol,the guy in the blue jacket looks like he means buisness,must be a model...a Thug model...
Looks like that Fedderman anti gun guy Democrat from PA Dr. OZ is running against.
I always thought the hostage ones were funny!
He almost seems to be just barely containing a laugh at his pose.
I think the guy in the blue jacket is behind in child support and needs money.
I wonder how these people go about modeling for shooting targets
I’ve wondered about that myself.
They hire FBI IRS ATF Agents to pose for them.
Many thanks for this video series! Very informative. I learned something. As much as I practice on the range & try to prepare for the unthinkable, I pray I never fire my weapon except on the range.
So do I. Thanks for watching!
I need to get more serious about my targets. Usually it's a carboard box with a bullseye made with a fat sharpie marker.
Great content, clearly explained Chief. Thanks. One of the indoor ranges I train at in Tulsa stocks a skeletonized target with internals depicted. A favorite of mine.
@Peter Angles Not even as an honorary title? From days gone by.
Actually, I feel very honored that some people still call me Chief even though the title has passed on to another.
Good morning HR. Enjoyed the video but you're making me spend money. Picked up Grossman's On Killing and read the intro last night. It looks like the problems he outlined in society have gotten worse since it was written. Another good book,not as scientific,is Bill Jordan's No Second Place Winner.
I’ve had a copy of that one for a long time. Thanks!
Thanks for making this series. I learned a ton 🤜🤛
As did I.
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching!
👍 good job, stay safe - carry on
7:40 A left handed Neo Bolshevik ? Fascinating .
Another great video!
Good morning hrfunk. Very informative video as usual. On the subject of realistic targets, have you heard of the t-rex arms chameleon targets? Remember hearing about those a few years back, they used some sort of 3D modeling software to make thousands of different positions and angles, faces, clothing, hair styles etc. With an organ zone diagram on them too. Seemed to be close enough to what you're looking for, even tho they aren't photos but "realistic" 3D models pictures.
I don’t believe I’ve heard of them, but I’ll see what I can find out.
I was just looking at those targets. They are some of the better ones that I’ve seen. They are a little cartooney (maybe video gamey would be a better description), but all in all not bad. I would still prefer an anatomical diagram as opposed to the rather generic outlined areas used on these targets, but at least they present different postures and angles to the shooter.
It would be great to have the realistic images of perps in different postures and after you shoot the target you can walk up to it and peel the top layer off and it shows the anatomical image of the bones organs etc.
Thanks for another excellent presentation. It is sad people let politics get in the way of logic. Unfortunately because public agencies are constrained by this silliness, the market for the manufacturers is reduced to the point they are not going to produce these valuable training aids for those who are not as witless.
Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of private citizens training these days. We shall see.
Well said. I like the Q target, but I think I need to get some of those in color & quartering ones for general purpose drills.
I think I am going to go get some realistic targets...the more training with your Firearm and different targets will make you better and more skilled..I liked the video...
Thank you!
@@hrfunk your welcome! Man are you see the OSU Football game...Do you watch college football??
Not really. I’m not much of a college football fan.
Very good presentation, master class level stuff. You're spot on with the psychological aspect. When you brought up the female target, I didn't even think it was a target at first. It just looked like a woman to me, until I saw the gun which was maybe a second later.
The psychological aversion to using deadly force manifests itself in many ways.
Good video for sure. You made me think for once instead of being lazy, and real thinking does take some energy. Makes me also think, what if a photorealistic target only had the head as the shoot zone, and the photo had a guy wearing military looking body armor?
I could also see targets directed towards women where the attacker just had his hands grabbing rather than having a gun, and the hips being a major shoot zone for shattering a hip and allowing for a woman to get away from a rape attempt.
Personally I have always had an issue with the woman attacker targets as it goes against all taught morals, but then again in the neighboring county here in MI some crazy woman shot her dad and sister, then went outside and shot two handymen just happening to be there working on a roof, killing them all. So unexpected targets do serve a purpose.
Another target idea that could be cool would be ones that are like the old check duplicate paper. Like no hints on the photorealistic target, you do your best then after shooting peel the back and see where your bullets actually hit the anatomy.
Or simply put the diagram on the back of the target. As long as the organs are in the right position that would work. The only problem would be that you would have to remove the target from the target stand in order to see where your bullets hit.
Looking forward for part II 😀
This was part 2 you need to go back and watch part 1.
Excellent presentation - Thank you!
Chief, you made this topic most interesting. Being able to hit the right place is vital to a handgun user as the majority of handgun calibers are not very powerful (oops, opened another can of worms here...).
I just attended a pistol class, and we used those sorts of photographic targets, although I don't think they had the vital areas
Of course I got the Target that looked like an adolescent with a Glock
Oh look, I'm in a gun fight with Doogie Howser LOL
Good morning hrfunk. Nice video. My range's rules explicitly state that human image targets are prohibited. At the same time, I have never seen or heard anyone enforcing that rule.
I tend to use IPSC and USPSA targets, but use smaller sharpie'd focal points within the A zones. Or I'll use Redfield Sight-In targets with the center diamond & 4 quadrant diamonds. Mostly I aim small, it's not just for rifles!
How about a human body with a Gorilla Head?
@@mikewallace8087 :thumbsup: I'm sure some of the movie stills from They Live could work also.
Great video! I agree with your ideas. I think I will try some of these targets. Thanks!
Very well said. Thank you.
Thanks for this series, very informative.
I use the Photo Realistic and also Bladed Active Shooter Targets in my vids & Realistic Dicken Drill vid from TargetsOnline hard cardstock weather and cqb tear resistant
Very good points you bring up HR and very useful video! Great content, keep feeding us! Thanks
Will do Dan. Thanks for watching!
I’ve heard that some states don’t allow lifelike targets.
Anyway, I’m still alive. 👋
Good!
Good Vid, Chief.
Thanks Chris!
I'll stick with my B-29 RC, and either a 686 or 1911..
I frequently use a piece of printer paper and draw head targets. I'm no artist but I draw eyes, nose, and mouth. Also a line which I want to stay in. When I shoot I can immediately see how effective a shot is.
Something that could be interesting is if a target manufacturer has a reactive shoot and see type material over the vitals and the non vitals was just plain paper but the vital and non vital was same shirt color.
Thank you..best target shooting I've done is on moving targets..takes it to a new level 🤠👉
I could be a target model..😍..might be uncomfortable at the range 😬
Very good points. This has given me ideas for my own training. I'm going to play devil's advocate on the realistic targets. I do not believe this myself, but a trial attorney's argument is that by using realistic targets you are premeditating murder. How could this line of thought be countered?
I think you could counter that by saying you are increasing your level of safety by training to hit areas on a hostile aggressor that will reduce the number of rounds do you have the fire. In so doing you are reducing the chances of potentially missing and hitting an innocent person.
@@hrfunk Excellent.
Great information, as always. Thank you sir.
👍👍 Thanks HR, very well presented,
Great video HR. I never considered many of these factors. Your points are very well made. One thing I saw a guy do was put an old t-shirt over an IDPA target so we could not see exactly where our rounds hit. That was pretty interesting.
Really good video, HR, and you brought up some things I hadn't thought of. By the way, I bought something from Optics Planet a couple of months ago and have been getting bombarded with email from them ever since. Like a couple of times every day.
Thank you! You should be able to “unsubscribe” from those OP emails.
Excellent follow-up video H.R.
If a target manufacturer came up with more realistic targets like you mentioned, I do believe that they would be very popular!
I keep thinking about contacting one or two of them to see if they would be willing to help develop this concept.
1:13 I have a love and hate relationship with those IPSC/USPSA targets. I think they're really good for assessing control when firing rapidly, especially with handguns, but I don't think those designated scoring lines are a be all/end all. I personally think using these types of targets with rifles and non-magnified optics (or iron sights) at 100 yards or more starts to get really silly.
I've noticed some agencies and security companies train using those same targets in very different ways. One company specifically trained us to try to aim and land our shots at the very top or just above the "A" zone (because theoretically such shots would hit *above* any body armor being worn).
That was fine, I guess, but another set of instructors wanted us to aim directly within the "A" zone in the middle of the target, and anything outside it at all got some points deducted. We would even lose points if we shot the small "A" zone in the *head* ...I thought that last point was really bizarre.
Great video, thanks again.
USPSA should give bonus points, in effect, for cranial A hits vs thoracic A. Or Thoracic should be B zone with a small A at heart/aorta area.
If the point were anatomy focus, that is.
I recall reading that IPSC matches in Europe are specially forbidden from using realistic silhouettes
That figures.
You were a chief wowzer you're an impressive guy. That cross draw holster is nice I dig that. I find it interesting having friendly dialog with a cop, even a retired one. Very outside what I'm used to. That's a good thing. I shouldn't, not like cops for doing their jobs. I just get pissed when they refuse to think, hide behind the law and create problems as a result...for me lol.
Ha, ha! It still surprises me that I was a Chief. Thanks for watching!
Excellent presentation. Thanks. I was shooting on a public range once where there are about a dozen targets to choose from for sale. The lady next to me was learning to shoot, but she would only shoot on a bullseye target, not on a humanoid shape. She should be given credit for learning a new skill, but if she can't shoot a a humanoid blob, then she isn't learning defensive shooting. I can not find it on-line, but in the 1930s the FBI had it's agents shooting on a target with the face of Public Enemy #1, John Dillinger!
I never heard that. I’ll see if I can find anything on it too.
Once more, very expertly explained, naturally keeping attention going until the logical conclusion. Excellent video ! 👍👍
Thanks Marc!
Mr. Funk, that was a great follow on video from the previous one. I attended a class today teaching defensive shooting. The instructor had many decades in the military, police, and swat teams. For the sniper training, the target zones were the spine and eyes. He also mentioned the Vickers target. The multiple positions and realistic photographs have convinced me that you are on the right track. What if the anatomy drawing was on the back of the target to evaluate affectiveness after shooting? Also, ammo and targets are rather expensive, so why not have better targets versus buying hundreds of NRA bullseye targets like we used in camp as kids? I've been shopping for targets online and will keep looking for a variety of targets with the criteria you presented. This video was very helpful. After watching many of your videos, I could not shoot targets that are photographs of you. Maybe particularly bad inmates should be the models.
The only issue I foresee with having an anatomical diagram on the back of the target is that you have to take it down before you can evaluate your shooting.
The ultimate training solution may be virtual reality; after all, real perps don't strike poses. I think Axon Enterprise may already be using this for taser training.
If so, I haven’t seen it.
If you can't get any target makers to take you up on this, I say light a candle rather than curse the darkness. See what it would take to get targets made up to your specifications, get them printed out, and set up some form of distribution, even if it is just selling online. Your TH-cam subscribers and your professional contacts should be a solid base to drum up support for a project like this, both in terms of investor funding, market research, and future sales
I’ve considered something along those lines, but I hope I can attract a target manufacturer who already has the production and distribution capabilities.
👍x2
Those anatomical diagram targets don’t show the liver?
No, they don’t.
I believe you are correct in your observations regarding targets. However, I believe you are ignoring one of the most important aspects of defensive shooting. Most defenders simply focus on the threat, point their handgun at that threat and pull the trigger. Thus we have the high number of "shots fired" and low number of hits. All of those trained for skills are absent and or ignored in the crisis of a life and death encounter. I cite the statics of police officer shootings with the many misses as evidence that all the "training" has little value in these situations.🤔
I disagree. If you look at highly trained military units, they are extremely effective. Proper and routine training is invaluable. Unfortunately, many people, to include police officers, do not receive that sort of training
No paper target can teach you to know what dynamically happens when a target is hit. It is a very different in real life. Paper targets can give you a reference to maybe the first shot. Good video though.
Hunting can provide some insight.
One issue that came up with IDPA targets were that they are tan. Some people complained that it encourages the portrayal of people of color as targets. Political correctness is everywhere.
Yep, and unfortunately it has a deleterious effect on preparing individuals for a defensive encounter.
Wish I could remember where I saw them, but they were special "zombie" targets that had paint packets either on them or behind them that bleed depending where you shot them.
I’ve seen a couple different versions of targets like that. I’m not sure they add much to the training experience.
I wonder if my range will allow those photographic life like targets?
I hope so.
Great video. By what I know, defensive shootings happen so fast that the best tactic is to aim at the middle of the chest. Second, shots to the face or head. If the target is wearing a ballistic vest, then either the head or the abdomen below the vest.
There are so many variables and dynamics in those circumstances, it's hard to predict with any certainty how best to react.
Outstanding Review Howard as always .
Thanks Rick!
the realistic governmental targets I use to help me achieve better shot placement, is from printing photos of certain political figures off the internet.
instead of numbers and point systems, you can use the different levels of rank the particular political figure has
I really wouldn’t even joke about that.
@@hrfunk it's not a joke
you haven't seen those full sized paper targets like you are showing but they have political peoples picture on them, like osama bin laden, hitler, stalin and such?
The quality of your presentation is awesome
Thank you John!
Has anybody noticed the profile of his shadow when he's describing the Q target? LMFAO!!!!
Nope. Now I’ll have to rewatch the video to see it.
@@hrfunk It starts at the 11 minute 30 second timestamp.
Good morning Howard (and fellow community members). I enjoyed this video - I’ve now watched it twice - particularly because it caused me again to consider handgun, lawful defense, firearms use . . . which I know far exceed the defined topic of better / best targets for training. Therefore, please don’t read this if you’re disinterested in the foregoing, related subject.
My abbreviated thoughts follow:
> Handguns chambered in the most common calibers are poor near-instantaneous felon-stoppers. In the last 10+ year, projectile design has decidedly improved - all sorts of recent studies essentially indicate that top-tier defensive bullets in 9mm, .38 Special +P (maybe), .357magnum , .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm are near-equal in their defensive efficacy - BUT none of them provides the probability of immediate threat termination that nearly all center-fire rifles/carbines or an appropriately loaded 12/20 gauge shotgun does.
> The April, 1986, FBI Miami firefight / debacle imho remains very instructive. Platt was hit twelve times, several of these wound would eventually have been fatal, but he didn’t die immediately and (armed with a .223 Mini-14), in only a couple minutes he murdered two Special Agents and wounded five others (three quite seriously), become he succumbed.
> Ken Hackathorn (a highly esteemed expert) recently emphasized (in a video on Bill Wilson’s TH-cam channel) that head (CNS) shots really may be essential; his point was even a shot to the criminal’s heart can take five to ten seconds to kill or entirely disable, and in that time a 15+ round magazine might well be emptied. Of course, the other side of this supposition is, commonplace “psychological stops” where the miscreant ceases his aggressiveness (and often flees) with one or two misses or with no shots fired.
> I’ll add to Hackathorn’s belief the obvious fear that “spraying and praying” - to obtain a fast disabling or lethal hit - can likely jeopardize innocents.
So, what does the forgoing have to do with target design? I understand why the upper thorax zone is the prime defensive target area; it’s comparatively large and hits there can be very effective. However, Hackathorn’s “how much damage can the criminal potentially inflict before he bleeds out?” concern (imho) has merit. Accordingly, I wonder if greater emphasis on the head/ CNS hits should be reflected in target designs?
A few years ago, the International Association of Chiefs of Police was recommending head-shots for suspected suicide bombers. That philosophy, in my estimation, had some merit for other types of engagements. Good anatomical targets could help with practicing CNS shots in various scenarios.
@@hrfunk
THANKS for that information, I am nit knowledgeable, however I agree.
👍excellent
Print the diagrams on the back or the target.
What I need is input from the medical community to insure everything is in the right place based upon the posture of the target. Also, the idea of having to remove the target to evaluate the effectiveness of one’s shooting might be inconvenient.
Sadly, targets depicting people are banned from the range I use. Outline targets are all I can use but I know where critical areas are. A lot of focus is on heart and lungs but the liver is also a critical area. The femoral artery in the groin is also a critical area if the more obvious are not accessible.
Take a look at the offerings from targetsonkine. There might be something that will work well for you.
@@hrfunk I will give it a look, thank you.
13:17 looks like a shaved John Fetterman
Someone else said that too.
I aim for the same places on the body the I would use a bladed weapon. The most common method of death by gunshot is bleeding not vital organ damage. I understand the brutality of what I've said but it's a brutal subject. I would avoid head shots on purpose. That don't look good in court.
They are effective, nonetheless. In court, the only thing that SHOULD matter is whether a defensive shooter was justified in firing; not where the shots were aimed.
@@hrfunk unfortunately if the justified shooter happens to have an intimidating appearance or an off body language that does effect court. Because in reality justice is not blind. Besides I aim low and work my way up the target. Never start at the head end lol.
One comment is that some states do not allow a target that has a human image on it similar to what you had said in the beginning of the video; post 9/11 Massachusetts banned any Bin Laden targets for that reason, sadly. I appreciate the value of a full color target now after seeing this, Another good video 👍
Thanks Tom!
@@hrfunk always a good show
Let's be honest, the actual type of target is IRRELEVANT. Targets are NOT designed to be an anatomic equivalent to a human - that is a marketing thing. Your bad guy will not be posing like the target you select. The purpose of any target is to give you some objective measure of your shot placement. The whole point is to be able to place your rounds on demand wherever needed. So again, I use a 9" Walgreen's Paper plates with a 6" inner circle. You can divide that into quadrants with a ruler and pencil and really call your shots. Other times, mostly outdoors, I use an IDPA target or simple steel targets. Put your rounds where they need to go.
So where do you practice shooting on a paper plate to direct your bullets toward the heart/lungs of a person presenting only their right side while leaning backward?
@@hrfunk Exactly! You are making my point. If that shot presents itself to me, I am confident, at the time, that my bullets will impact where I need them to be. If all I have is a shot on "a person presenting only their right side while leaning backward" I will aim for the most anatomically significant body parts I can see at that time. The firing solution is developed before firing. There is no way to train or approximate all the possibilities that may present themselves. You just need to be sure you have the knowledge and skills to deliver on demand.
@@papimaximus95 I wish you always the best.
First of all: Target, one side photographic image, another site (rear) anatomic images.
Second: put a t-shirt in front of a paper target
As always excellent video
Thanks Paulo, I actually had the same idea while responding to another comment.
Cool video thanks.
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching!
Howard, you bring up a good point with realistic targets for training. Besides the marksmanship aspect of training, there is the equally important combat mindset to prevail in a gunfight. You are facing another human being who is attempting to kill you, and your mindset has to be survival to prevail. Shooting at generic bullseye targets at the range doesn’t give you the combat mindset of facing another human being who is attempting to take your life. I think the more realistic training targets help set your mind that you are facing another human being. Those of us who have not had military or law enforcement experiences have to develop that combative mindset. Thanks again for your thought provoking presentation
My pleasure. I’m not sure if you saw part-1, but I go into some psychological considerations in that presentation.
@@hrfunk I have to go back and find that one. TH-cam messes with my favorite channels and seems to play hide-and-seek with my favorite gun channels. Irritating but expected.
Here’s a link: The Best Targets for Defensive Firearm Training
th-cam.com/video/CAcfZ03gu1o/w-d-xo.html
Thanks
My pleasure Dan!
I came across a target video several years ago that suggested using the cheapest 6 inch paper plates you can find and placing them on that standard cardboard range target to represent the brain and the heart on the target. Then introducing a shot timer and the goal was to place three shots, two in the heart and one in the head within five seconds and both eyes open. Since most range rules do not allow drawing from a holster. I modified it and simply pick the gun up off of the bench, or start in the low ready depending on the range and their rules. It's actually very difficult to do accurately in five seconds and I still struggle to do it every time.
Certainly no bad guy eyes looking back at you either. Excellent food for thought by the way.
That brings me to the idea of possibly a third video in the series, what are some training drill recommendations for those of us that do not have access to anything but a standard range?
Excellent video and content, thank you.
You’re welcome. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I think my best advice would be to select a different range.
@@hrfunk I am open to suggestions.
May I ask where you live?
@@jeffwoollard2280 Disregard that question, I wasn’t paying attention when I typed it. The Ashland Lake Gun Club is not far south of you. That’s one option. I’m not sure if Top Guns is still in Brunswick Hills, but that might work too.
Not all armed encounters are created equal. LEO involved shooting has different parameters than a citizen involved shooting and what constitutes an effective hit can differ. Most criminals know that an armed citizen cannot pursue him so you are less likely to face a "zombie" attacker. Most of the time just displaying your defense firearm ends the encounter and hit scored if you are forced to actually shoot your attacker is going to do the job. During a law enforcement encounter where the suspect decides to take on the police you are more likely to encounter someone who you have to deliver a disabling shot to end the situation. I hold up the Greenwood Mall shooting as example. Fhe first hit may not have put the attacker down but certained ended his desire to run up the score.
I would contend that at the moment a shot is fired, the occupation of the defensive shooter is irrelevant. In that instant, the goal is to stop the aggressive actions of the attacker as quickly as possible.
@@hrfunk The objective of a LEO is suspect apprehension. The objective of an armed citizen is to force your assailant or allow you to break contact. The level of force and/or level of physical effect required to get the desired effect is different.
@@johnshepherd8687 I disagree.
@@hrfunk Let's agree to disagree then. :)
@@johnshepherd8687 absolutely. Thanks for watching and thanks for the comment.
things i noticed about competative shooting did fit right with me in my opinion is no standard of incapacitation meaning all agree on a target kill zone that 2 rounds we can call it incapacitation, i am in favor of a 4 inch heart size kill zone although i wont object to larger kill zones but we need a good standard as a baseline. transitioning before incapcitation is another flaw i noticed, this is say you have a standard of 2 shots to A zone simulating incapacitation but you miss them 2 shots and double tap the 2nd and 3rd with exposure to those targets, the first target had not been taken out first wich means other 2 could be returning fire, a requirement of 2 hits in that kill zone first before going to target 2 and 3 i am in favor of, shooting the target kill zone as placed as emphasis over speed, sometimes speed can be used to win even if you dont hit the kill zone wich i think is not a good way to train, Robert Keller Army special ops did a video on this saying a quick double tap on 3 targets if you dont incapacitate the 1st one you shouldnt go to the next 2 targets, this means if we have a 2 shot standard in a kill zone you have to shoot it first even if it takes you whole magazine but only exposing yourself from cover to just that one target untill we get 2 rounds in kill zone. so maybe having big torso targets are not to good if a shooter is going to miss 2 shots to kill zone but they know that speed running the course they can still win, i am in favor of only counting a shooters speed if he puts 2 rounds at least in a kill zone before moving to other targets, in many way speed has messed things up and worship of the timer and emphasis on it, ken hackathorn even came out and said this on the wilson combat channel "shooters 7 sins" if anyone would know this it would be him since he had a big part in getting competition shooting going in the early days just as jeff cooper. to me defensive shooting for say like a private citizen, non law enforcement or non military is shooting to defend but getting to cover in reverse, we are trying to extract ourselves from that situation should be the emphasis on training and maybe a little sheep dog training going forward to the threat, many over the decades have lumped the role of military and law enforcement into training private citizens wich have a different role, the private citizen hardly ever has to chase a threat but they only have to defend themselves, get to cover and extract themselves from the situation, law enforcement has to chase and put cuffs on wich requires more resources and ammo since they may get into a additional gun fight even if they got into the first one, this is not the role of a private citizen, they are not required by duty to chase and put cuffs on, this is why small pistols and even small calibers like a 22 for defense are fine for a private citizen since they mostly will not have to chase but get out of the situation and shoot back only to defend if a threat is chasing them wich is rare, generally when a private citizen fires a shot there is a scatter offect of the threats running away and it makes sense that no one and not even bad guys want to get shot even if its a little pocket 22, claude werners reseach on his big defensive use of pistols data base show that small pistols and small calibers where not the doom we thought, in that for every time you find a citizen getting killed defending theselves with a 22 you can find just as many that got killed having a 9 mm, so this shows its not about the caliber or even capacity but more about the person behind the gun and reaction a threat has to it, most the times the threat even if 3 or more scatter and dont want to be shot, so these bad guys dont care about ballistics gel tests because even if bullet didnt expand or penetrate to fbi protocol most people dont care and are looking for the nearest hospital where they are treated and arrested so it didnt matter it was a 22 or not because it saved a citizen from a threat despite how weak of a round many think it is, its easy in the right hands with a little training to hit kill zones fast with a 22, the advantage of a 22 is real training all the time if you have land and when ever you want with out breaking the bank, i think defense training we should focus on most of the training based on "most likely" situations that are seen like on camera on youtube videos and the "least likely" situations, we still train but emphasis of training on "most likely" and for most situations based on observation of videos and actual events of using a firearm for defense, i think 1 piece of cover, 3 targets and at say 7 - 10 yards should be the main focus for a private citizen as far as a baseline training for defense, the reason its so basic is once again the role of a private citizen to to get away and extract themselves from the situation and not go forward chasing the threat like competition shooting, military and law enforcement wich is going to the trouble rather then trying to avoid trouble, if a private citizen wants to be a sheep dog it they have to know the situation, many good samaritans lost everything and had to do jail time not knowing a situation getting involved, listen to the story by joel gunguytv youtube channel he tells a story how his life was almost completly ruined by getting involved in situations but not just that he tells people what its going to cost you in california is so bad that you shouldnt get involved as a sheep dog even in other states the law makes it impossible for a private citizen to get involved with out servere consequences
I agree that if USPSA thoracic A zone were meant to be as critical as cranial A zone, thoracic would shrink to about 1/3 its present size.
USPSA is more a game and sport that gives great skill development, than it is directly and purposefully a defensive shooting paradigm. But the defensive skills will result indirectly, if you work at scoring better, I think.
The shadow at 11:30😂
I still need to watch for it.
@@hrfunk you kept saying “anatomically correct” 😆 I thought you did it on purpose.
@@hrfunk it’s funny low brow coincidences like this that will get this video to 1M views
Thanks, great video. I know not related to the specific topic of this content, sometimes simulator training is a good mix. The only issue is that in simulator training the tactile feel of the firearm as well as the environmental aspects are reduced. Also the targeting areas are also arbitrary.
Agreed. It’s beneficial but not perfect. It has to be used to augment live-fire and scenario based training.