LOUIS AWERBUCK's Target Systems for training

[nycnoob]

I could not find an appropriate place to put this, so if you want to move this post do a different section please feel free.


I took Louis Awerbucks classes (pistol/shotgun) several years ago. I was pretty new to guns at the time, so it was all very new to me. Louis had several innovative target systems (bent paper targets to look like cylinders, targets mounted at angles so you minimize square range issues facing target issues) he even had a target "family" of a badguy mixed in with no shoot targets all of which rotated around each other and jiggled and bounced like people talking. I am a bit of a training junkie but I have never seen these targets systems used by anyone else. though it was often said that Louis is 'one of the best'. I am just wondering what the professional trainers think of his systems (obviously if they really liked it they would be using it themselves). I know Tam tried to start a thread about this at least a year ago and there were no bites.

[Tamara]

I know Tam tried to start a thread about this at least a year ago and there were no bites.

No, but I've brought it up in a thread or two.

I think judging its value is pretty simple, based on whether one expects the target one might eventually have to shoot at to be a moving one or not.

I think part of the reason you don't see them used more (and the reason Louis only used them for the "final exam") is that they're extremely instructor intensive, basically reducing the class to a 1-on-1 instructor/student ratio while in use, as well as being extremely non-flyable. Not all the peripatetic instructors roam the earf in a full-size pickup. Some fly from gig to gig.

[orionz06]

I know a few of the major guys, when asked, all mentioned they liked it and that they couldn't travel with it.

[NETim]

I just purchased some Awerbuck books and a video (which includes a free 10x14 poster!) which I hope will explain some of his ideas and targets. "Hit or Myth" appears to cover this stuff.

[Mr_White]

I think part of the reason you don't see them used more (and the reason Louis only used them for the "final exam") is that they're extremely instructor intensive, basically reducing the class to a 1-on-1 instructor/student ratio while in use, as well as being extremely non-flyable. Not all the peripatetic instructors roam the earf in a full-size pickup. Some fly from gig to gig.

This.

I like the sound of the targets I have heard about Louis Awerbuck using.

With interesting targets like that, I think it boils down to training efficiency vs. value. There is a lot of cool stuff that can be done with a few different target materials, cord, cardboard, duct tape, etc. Whether it is worth the time required to use those things in class is another question.

In the training I do, we use:

standard targets
negative space targets
moving/reactive targets (bowling pins, tennis balls, those orange things from Do-All)
3D targets with limited reactivity
silhouette targets that react to enough accurate shots by falling down
threat and nonthreat target arrangements that require the student to recognize and improve the shot angle
moving threat and nonthreat target arrangements that require the student to make accurate shots while the targets are moving somewhat unpredictably and safer shot angles are constantly coming and going

A lot of those are used sparingly because they all cost time, some more than others. Some have to be used in individual exercises, some in paired exercises, some in two relays, some with everyone on the line. And Tam is right that a lot of this stuff is not so suitable for air travel. These things work better at a school with an actual location.

[TElmer2]

As a fellow training junkie I am deeply saddened by this loss. Mr. Awerbuck was on my very short list of people to train with; as I may not be at Oragami's level, but I seek out teachers that will teach me to be more of a "thinking shooter" more than just a shooter.

Regardless, I have also spoken with various people about the various types of targets he used and it basically boils down to time/money.(As usual Tam is right) I truly wish there was a way to set up his "mover" contraption. Talk about a goat rope for a shooter.

As such, I also use negative space in conjunction with simply angling the targets a particular way to increase stress/accuracy while training. What humbles me and makes me think while speaking of this is people who do shoot or even "train"; it seems everybody is of the impression that a bad guy will always head straight for you and you will always have that IDPA or B-27 size target to make your "combat accurate" hits. Louis almost always put something to that effect in many of his articles, that this obviously isn't the case...man he will be missed.

[rob_s]

Hopefully some of the pictures and viceos here help (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10M-mxyStYmpe1jxkoylbQJaRFOd6aqqIZ9Z6CMlLs1Q/edit?usp=sharing) with what is being described.

Basically, the setup time is the same once you accept that you are already stapling or gluing paper over cardboard.

There was a progression to how the targets were used.

First you shoot flat targets.
Then you shoot targets that are curved.
Then you shoot targets that are curved and angled off of the X axis.
Then you shoot targets that are curved and angled off of the Z axis.
Then you shoot targets that are curved and angled off of the X & Z axis.
Then you shoot multiple targets that are curved and angled off of the X & Z axis wherein some are identified as no-shoots.

Last you do all of it while you're moving around and Louis is yelling at you.

Finally, and this is where there is some added complication, is the moving target system he devised.

One of the keys to all of this, that I took away, was the idea of "deep hits". What that means, or what I took it to mean, is that ultimately you are shooting for a golfball at the base of the skull at the back and a baseball at the center of the chest in both the X and Y axis. So, if the target turns off axis, you may go from shooting for the sternum to shooting for the nipple, or from shooting at the nose to shooting at the jaw. If he's leaning towards you then you may have to shoot at the top of the head.

The caveat in all of this is that if someone is a danger to you and all they are showing you is their foot, you shoot the heck out of that foot until they stop being a danger or present a more desirable target.

When I hear other instructors say "this is a gunfighting class, not a shooting class" and then see that what they mean by this is that they have you roll on the floor, blast high volumes of ammo, or accept a looser accuracy standard, I think of what Louis did with simply curving targets and laugh. His progression of instruction ("walk then run"), and what he fit into three days and with a relatively low volume of ammo also makes me chuckle at the vast majority of instructors out there.

Louis was that rare combination of real-world experience, decades of teaching experience, and teaching ability. I frankly can't think of anyone else with all three.

[rob_s]

My favorite Louis quote, "It's not rocket surgery" (delivered in an SA accent), springs to mind here.

[Tamara]

Rob has a good point: I have no idea why more people don't use the tilted/angled/tubed targets, either.

Unlike the (in)Famous "South African Computer", there's no added setup or instruction difficulty with that... (And nothing illustrates sight offset on an AR at close range better than a shot that was aimed at the eye box blowing past the target's earlobe because it's canted nearly horizontal.)

[feudist]

Great post and links Rob!

[nycnoob]

More photos of Luis Target systems (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_9_19/232962_AAR__Louis_Awerbuck_Shotgun___Stage_II.html )

You can see the giggling target I am talking about in this AAR. We did not use it for shotguns only for pistol. Several people had their pistol bullet stopped by the bill of the baseball hat.