Practicing the NSR (non-standard response) for defensive shooting

[JodyH]

I've gone back to practicing the NSR (non-standard response) for the majority of my range time.
The NSR is firing a random number of shots per draw/target rather than a set number.
For me that number is usually 0 to 5.

I first heard about the NSR in a Jeff Gonzales pistol class back in 2002 or so, and it makes sense to not have a 2 shots per draw habit ingrained because outside of USPSA/IDPA 2 shots may not be enough to "neutralize" or may be two too many.
The reason I'm devoting more range time to it is I've found myself in a rut of not only firing with every draw, but automatically firing two shots per draw and then either transitioning or evaluating due to most of my shooting under pressure lately has been in competition and that's the most efficient way to shoot targets in matches.

To break that rut I've gone back to shooting anywhere from zero to 5 or 6 shots per target at the buzzer unless it's a specific drill like a Bill or FAST.
For a while I found myself hesitating to take the third shot or worse having a hard time not taking the first shot.
When I set up multiple target practice stages/scenarios the "2 shots per" habit is really hard to break.

Speaking of shooting with a timer "buzzer". I've also gone back to using random visual or auditory stimulus as my "go signal" in addition to using a timer buzzer.
The auditory signals are when there range I use is fairly empty I'll wait for someone in another bay to fire their gun and that's my "go".
For a visual I'll pick out something like a styrofoam cup on the berm and when the wind moves it that's my "go" (works good out here where the wind is almost always going to gust every few minutes).

Just something I've added back into my range time and interested in others thoughts on the subject.

[rob_s]

The NSR is a topic I used to be really interested in. Often in my drills nights I would call a drill that required the student to fire "some number of rounds" and tried to get people to mentally decide to stop rather than counting to a stop. This had the added benefit at a drills night that some people want to shoot a lot, some people want to shoot less, and we could accommodate both groups this way.

Relating it strictly to "gunfighting", I came to the conclusion that if we're going to use visual cues to start shooting then we should do the same for stopping shooting. Rather than just deciding to stop shooting, have some visual cue that prompts you for that decision. I started down a path of various reactive and disappearing targets, as well as targets that became covered by non-threats.

I'm not, however, entirely convinced that training to shoot cardboard a fixed number of times is a problem, as I'm not sure I've seen documentation of that leading to a real-world problem (despite the anti-competition folks saying there is, I've never seen it), and in either case one way to break out of that is to simply run drills with various fixed counts. The IDPA club I used to shoot with did a lot of "3 per target" and "4 per target" stuff that I liked.

[SAWBONES]

Sounds like a sensible way to disrupt potentially-disadvantageous practice patterns.

I can definitely appreciate that kind of thinking, since for some time now the bulk of my range practice has been to repetitively draw and shoot singles, since I recognise that presentation from the CCW holster will be the manner in which I would actually need to shoot for protection of self or loved ones, BUT it does tend to reinforce the habit of single shots.

What's your decision-maker on how many shots to take per draw?

[LSP552]

It’s easy to fall into a standard double tap mode if that’s all we train. I agree with mixing things up to prevent that. I take both a technical and tactical approach to my range time. I don’t “think” it matters if you combine these on a single trip or alternate.

I draw a distinction between working to improve my technical skill and fighting. Drills and benchmarks for improving skill are just that. There are a ton of drills, thoughts and techniques for improving technical skills.

When I work on fighting skills, I mix draws and from a low ready. Acting and reacting to a stimulus, preferably visual is what I think works best at reducing a shoot two and wait and see mentality. I want to ingrain shoot until the threat isn’t a threat, and shoot at a speed appropriate for the environment, target and distance.

Having access to a turning target system is outstanding, shooting as long the target is visible. I think stimulus for stopping is every bit as important as for starting. A timer set to par times, or a buddy who can provide start and stop signals are also useful.

Sometimes we just have to make do with what we have. The key is, IMO, realizing what we are trying to accomplish and understanding the limitations of our training environment.

You can also make an argument for automatic failure drills as long as your par time/stimulus allows.

This has the potential to be a great PF thread. Thanks for starting the topic.

[shiv]

While the NSR is interesting and certainly useful in context, I don’t believe it could become a standard practice to dominate my range time.

On the range, I practice skills. I do this to get better at those specific skills as most all drills aren’t realistic. Just as force on force reps do not improve specific fundamentals. Skills cannot be quantified and qualified with the NSR. For instance, if I’m there to practice draw, I want to know how long that draw takes. If I’m shooting a random number of rounds, or that draw is initiated by a random visual cue, I cannot objectively measure my reps. Same for magazine changes, transitions, etc.

While a good concept, I believe it would be a better practice for force on force or combative the than for skills.

This is just my humble opinion as a new guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[41magfan]

I like to set my Poppers heavy so that it takes multiple hits (in the right place within a certain time frame) to knock them over. It establishes and reinforces good discipline in the fundamentals (at speed) since misses and marginal hits will result in the thing never going down.

[GJM]

Hunting gives you the opportunity to experience NSR shooting scenarios.

[LSP552]

Hunting gives you the opportunity to experience NSR shooting scenarios.

Absolutely. I’ve never been a shoot once and wait guy. Can’t count the number of times my Dad dogged me for wasting meat. :D

If it’s kicking, I’m shooting. Goes double for shooting pigs.

[GJM]

Absolutely. I’ve never been a shoot once and wait guy. Can’t count the number of times my Dad dogged me for wasting meat. :D

If it’s kicking, I’m shooting. Goes double for shooting pigs.

Is there any Spanish blood in your woodpile? The reason I ask, is because my PH in Africa told me that Spaniards get absolutely crazy around warthogs, and they physically have to take their rifle and ammunition away from them or all sorts of craziness starts.

[LSP552]

Is there any Spanish blood in your woodpile? The reason I ask, is because my PH in Africa told me that Spaniards get absolutely crazy around warthogs, and they physically have to take their rifle and ammunition away from them or all sorts of craziness starts.

Nope, just a transplanted Texan who believes bullets are cheap. And to keep on target, we shouldn’t take chances with things that could hurt us.

[JodyH]

On the range, I practice skills. I do this to get better at those specific skills as most all drills aren’t realistic. Just as force on force reps do not improve specific fundamentals. Skills cannot be quantified and qualified with the NSR. For instance, if I’m there to practice draw, I want to know how long that draw takes. If I’m shooting a random number of rounds, or that draw is initiated by a random visual cue, I cannot objectively measure my reps. Same for magazine changes, transitions, etc.

That's where detailed range notes come into play.
Every draw to fire (no matter how many followup shots) is trackable when you're use a timer.
Detailed notes will also give you data on your 2, 3, 4, 5, however many shot strings including times to first shot and splits.
I fact I'd say a data set that includes notes with various strings from 1-6 gives you more to go on than just a set with draw 2's and Bill Drills.
Draw 2's tend to turn into a test of finger speed ("double taps" so to speak) not necessarily true sight tracking. Bill Drills often turn into rhythm shooting instead of sight tracking and grip stability.
Varying the number of shots while still tracking it with a timer gives you a picture of what you do all the time.

Of course visual cue starts can't be tracked, but IMO practicing to react to a visual cue is worth doing. Even if you can't quantify performance gains you can definitely qualify them after you've done it enough (much like playing the "hand slap game", you may not know exactly how much faster your reaction is but you do know you're not getting slapped as much).

[shiv]

That's where detailed range notes come into play.
Every draw to fire (no matter how many followup shots) is trackable when you're use a timer.
Detailed notes will also give you data on your 2, 3, 4, 5, however many shot strings including times to first shot and splits.
I fact I'd say a data set that includes notes with various strings from 1-6 gives you more to go on than just a set with draw 2's and Bill Drills.
Draw 2's tend to turn into a test of finger speed ("double taps" so to speak) not necessarily true sight tracking. Bill Drills often turn into rhythm shooting instead of sight tracking and grip stability.
Varying the number of shots while still tracking it with a timer gives you a picture of what you do all the time.

Of course visual cue starts can't be tracked, but IMO practicing to react to a visual cue is worth doing. Even if you can't quantify performance gains you can definitely qualify them after you've done it enough (much like playing the "hand slap game", you may not know exactly how much faster your reaction is but you do know you're not getting slapped as much).

While, yes you can track some things, such as time to first shot. But is that the best use of time and ammunition to improve your draw times? I find I get more results focusing on skills rather than “when the cup moves I’m going to draw and fire a random number of rounds”.

I think random starts from the timer is important to avoid gaming and also recognizing the difference between skills, combatives, drills, competition, and the real world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PNWTO]

Hunting gives you the opportunity to experience NSR shooting scenarios.

Amen. I had a porcupine last year absorb four doses of 135gr +P Crit Duty. Animals don't care what supposed to happen.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Glad to see the inclusion of hunting for its preparation value.

The copper who coached me in judo when I started was in a shooting with a mentally ill subject around that time. It eventually deteriorated to where he had to shoot which was 2 rds and immediately re-holster, he did and that's when she cut him. He had to draw again and fire a couple more rounds to end that. He said it came from the conditioning of the time.

Randomy set poppers are "a" way. Ron Fielder & Quitman Dennis out of the Nashville area have a computer run reactive steel set that is quite random. It isn't cheap but it will make stay on the sights and the target until the problem is resolved.

[GJM]

Ron is a great guy and was one of the instructors at my 599.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

Ron is local to me and teaches remote Gunsite classes out here in TN.

I tend to lean towards the Tom Givens idea of keep shooting until the bad guy, “falls off the front sight.”

Either they’ve moved which will require a reassessment and reaquirement of the sights, or the bad guy is down, and will again require reassessment as to whether any more rounds are required. In the past year, I’ve really become more acutely aware of my shooting speed and cadence, and bring cognizant of not shooting faster than my wheels can turn.


civiliandefender.com

[GJM]

In the past year, I’ve really become more acutely aware of my shooting speed and cadence, and bring cognizant of not shooting faster than my wheels can turn.


civiliandefender.com

This is interesting. Lately I have been focusing on shooting without regard to my perception of time or any desired cadence. Instead of time, which I see as an unhelpful intrusion on my shooting performance, I have focused shooting by reference to sights and trigger. I check time as part of every run, but only afterwards.

[Patrick Taylor]

Guilty of an automatic 2 shots myself. Not really an issue now days but I first noticed this in a class when I would fire 2 rounds when another number was needed if the drill was hard enough to require concentration on something else.

[John Hearne]

A definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. If I deliver 2-4 solid, high chest shots and the target is still there, I see no point in continuing to fire into the chest. If, after the solid chest shots there is still a target, I would prefer to track up and shoot between the eyes if they are still there when my sights track up. I am also concerned that if I program myself to fire a larger number of rounds, the target may drop before I realize I need to stop shooting and I may launch one or two wild rounds into whatever or whoever is behind the threat. Rather than fire NSR's, I'd prefer to work on 3-D problems so that I have a reasonable chance of dinging the spine in my initial volley to the chest.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

This is one reason that I really like the VTAC 1-5 drill. Not only does it get you into the mindset that two shots may not always do the trick, or even be necessary, it’s a great drill for working on sight tracking. Kyle Lamb points out in his demonstration video on YouTube something to the effect of “a lot of people can shoot 1 or 2 shots pretty fast and accurately but not very many people can shoot 3, 4 or 5 shots fast and accurately.”

The 1-5 drill is a little hard on round count but I try to always do 3-5 reps of it when I go to the range.

Jared Restons OIS is an excellent example of how people don’t always stop doing what their doing when they should. The guy he shot was dead about five times over but his brain didn’t know it yet so he kept fighting until a CNS shot was made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Erick Gelhaus]

A definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. If I deliver 2-4 solid, high chest shots and the target is still there, I see no point in continuing to fire into the chest. If, after the solid chest shots there is still a target, I would prefer to track up and shoot between the eyes if they are still there when my sights track up.

Absolutely agree ... especially if distance supports the progression supports the progression to/through a failure drill - whether traditional or Howe's variant.

One of the tools I'd really like to see developed is a reasonable cost, mechanically functioning version of what Dennis & Fielder developed. It would provide a way to address it, to overcome the insanity factor you mention.

There's a pretty cool reactive target I'd buy at least a few of when they're available again ... if the designer would quit putting it off. :)

[fixer]

Gonna give this a try sometime.

[LittleLebowski]

Both ToddG and Uncle Pat Rogers taught the NSR, although Todd did not refer to it as such, rather he taught us to fire a burst of fire.

[UNM1136]

I like NSRs. Breaks people out of their comfort zones a bit. It can be as simple as setting up a course of fire that requires X number of rounds, or you can randomize with various "stop" signals. Creativity in design of drills can be crucial in avoiding problems.

pat

[41magfan]

I think Angus may have alluded to some of this in his post so the circumstances and the various factors at play may or may not make what I’m about to say relevant or contextual.

The inherent problem with all (if not most) of these “Plan B” options we devise (in the bright light of a square range) is the fact that a real life target seldom (if ever) offers us any real-time audio or visual feedback. One the range that’s exactly what prompts us to switch gears, but a flesh and blood target will NOT give us that kind of feedback.

If you’re shooting a bad-guy CM and you’re not getting a reaction from your target, more likely than not, it is because you are missing! If you assume you’re getting hits CM and you’re not, going to a smaller target (like the head) isn’t going to work out real well. When lighting conditions are less than perfect, and you and/or the target are moving, hitting the big part (CM) is quite often all you can do with some predictability.

[scw2]

If you’re shooting a bad-guy CM and you’re not getting a reaction from your target, more likely than not, it is because you are missing! If you assume you’re getting hits CM and you’re not, going to a smaller target (like the head) isn’t going to work out real well. When lighting conditions are less than perfect, and you and/or the target are moving, hitting the big part (CM) is quite often all you can do with some predictability.

Is that a valid assumption? I know DB and Wayne are advocates of and have seen good results with training the failure drill so you have an ingrained response if you've only managed to hit "timers" instead of "switches" in a situation when the bad guy isn't responding to the initial shots.

[41magfan]

Is that a valid assumption? I know DB and Wayne are advocates of and have seen good results with training the failure drill so you have an ingrained response if you've only managed to hit "timers" instead of "switches" in a situation when the bad guy isn't responding to the initial shots.

I don't know about it being an assumption, but I think it's a reasonable probability for the average shooter when things are dynamic. Failure drills, in any form, yield good results when the target is static. When the shooter and the target start moving in an unpredictable way, the hit factor starts tanking for most folks. That's all I was alluding to.

[AMC]

Nope, just a transplanted Texan who believes bullets are cheap. And to keep on target, we shouldn’t take chances with things that could hurt us.

Only thing I've been a-skeered of when hunting is pigs. Was 50 feet away from a mountain lion in Colorado one morning while elk hunting. It was feeding on the gut pile of a dear one of my buddies had shot the day before. Wasn't nearly as nervous about that as I was hunting pigs. Freakin' things will play dead and ambush you. It's why I just shoot them in the head from the get go.

[Erick Gelhaus]

So, seems "we" agree it is a viable response, technique. Regardless of the mob with pitchforks & torches might say, there is more than enough practical and legal support for doing it.

To me, aside from telling ourselves or students to shoot X number of rounds or to change up the number of shots they take each run, the question is how do we go about programming this? Within realistic distances, I see the failure drill being programmed through sheer repitition but not so much on this.

(Still nice to see the references to hunting for preperation)

[LSP552]

To me, aside from telling ourselves or students to shoot X number of rounds or to change up the number of shots they take each run, the question is how do we go about programming this? Within realistic distances, I see the failure drill being programmed through sheer repitition but not so much on this.

(Still nice to see the references to hunting for preperation)

I think this ties in with mindset. IMO, our default needs to be shoot until the target isn’t a threat. Standard square range work and LE qualifications conspire to lock us into a set number of round response. One of so many reasons I hate the typical qual course.

Turning targets, steel or other reactive targets that can be programmed to require multiple hit OR multiple good hits, would help program this.

I’m not sure about the “when” to move to a failure drill. Most shots miss, so shooting 2 and moving to a smaller, harder to hit target may not be best for everyone. I know that works, but I’m personally not convinced that’s best for everyone.

For me personally, I’m a shoot 4 or so before I transition to the head unless I’m seeing armor.

[shiv]

When we practice scenario training (as opposed to skills training, we use plates propped and wedged into grooves in wood so that it (usually) takes multiple quick hits to fall and they have to be good hits. Though it starts with a buzzer. The idea for a stiffened popper is a good tip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueSky]

Since I was mentioned by name by Angus (QD is me) I will try to add to this. As a disclaimer I build and sell a target system that provides features that are suggested in this post. It is in use by others than Ron, some that cannot be named here.

The goal of this system is to provide a "gunfight minus one" where the student becomes the "one". Using 8" round steel plates, at a time unknown to the shooter, one or more targets will activate. Each target will require some number of hits, unkown to the shooter, to neutralize. When neutralized, the target will fall from sight. What will happen next is unknown to the shooter. It will likely be one or more targets activating - deal with it. Depending on the system operator, the shooter may not know when this will end - it can extend past the point of comfort. Faster is always better so the system tracks the time that the shooter was facing one or more active targets. We can compete if we like.

- Detect the threat
- Drive the gun to the threat
- Work the gun until the threat is neutralized
- Repeat as needed

This is all about unprediction and the system is named "UnPredictor". It is intended to be a gunfight trainer for those who already know how to shoot. But I have learned that not everyone likes this challenge. In YouTube there is an UnPredictor channel. If there is interest I can inform more.

You can shoot it with anything up through .308 at any range you like.

[Boondock Patrol]

I like shooting at targets that give me “visual clues” as you said, to let me know to move to the next target or threat. I gong, a flip target, ect. So many varieties are out there, but I like the visual clues.