FAST with a rifle (M4orgery)

[Al T.]

(Mods, feel free to move this if needed)

Today I mounted an Aimpoint H-1 on my AR/M4 clone. After I got it zeroed at 50y, I wanted to run some closer drills and see how I liked it. BTW, the H-1 rocks.

My drill of choice was a variation of TLG's FAST test. I varied it in two ways. First, 25 yards was my chosen distance. I looked at 50 yards and decided the time lag was too great. I could hit the 3x5 card, but at a very reduced pace. If I treated it like the MEU-SOC Carbine drill, cool. And I may do so later. But 25y was supported by my range and seemed to balance things nicely.

Second, I switched between 2 shots to the 3x5 card and 4 shots to the paper plate to the reverse. My thought was that the first four were to a BG in the open and the last two were to a BG that reached cover. I also went back to the original just to see what happened. I ended my shootingl with several Bill drills at 25 yards.

Par time for me was between 9 and 10 seconds, regardless of sequence. Breaks were in the .7 to .8 range. Magazine changes were about 3 seconds. All runs were 100% hits as you would expect with a RDS rifle.

Starting position was low ready with a two point sling.

Thoughts: I *really* like this drill and am looking at making it a 50y drill with moving to a more stable position for the shoots to the 3x5 card. Sort of an abbreviated MEU-SOC drill for us cake-eating civilians.

Many thanks to TLG for the concept. :)

[justcor]

Check out Kyle Lamb's Half & Half and 100 yd Agg. drills.
Or another really good one is the Mod Navy qual.

[Al T.]

Yep. Kyle is good stuff. I do tend to train with the rifle at extended distances as it's not a primary SD or HD weapon. One thing I really appreciate about the FAST drill is the balance of speed and precision.

Forgot to mention that I also turned the FAST test upside down as well with the 3x5 card below the paper plate to simulate a pelvis shot. For some strange reason I did not do well with the lower target. I only got 50% hits at speed. :(

Half and half:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-oYRn_llgo

[DocGKR]

Why pelvis and not head?

[Al T.]

I was running a 100% on the face shots, so mostly a desire to mix things up as far as shooting different targets at different speeds.

The fall off in accuracy surprised me, so I re-shot the drill a couple of times for a diagnosis. Without an observer diagnosis may be faulty, but I think I was driving too fast to the lower target as I missed low. Which shot of the pair missed is unknown.

[Little Creek]

Why pelvis and not head?

Hearsay has it that the pelvis is closer to the ground, therefore it moves around less than the head, making it easier to hit. Also, structural damage could be done around the pelvis area that might cause the BG to down.

[Al T.]

LC, the pelvis shot is a controversial tactic. I've read SMEs who think it's viable and SMEs who do not. For me, I'll stick with the old idea of "shooting any body part you see, till there's a better body part to shoot"*.

Think "Way of the Gun" toe shot. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AuIAgRMjrw&feature=channel


* via Clint Smith IIRC

[Little Creek]

LC, the pelvis shot is a controversial tactic. I've read SMEs who think it's viable and SMEs who do not. For me, I'll stick with the old idea of "shooting any body part you see, till there's a better body part to shoot"*.

Think "Way of the Gun" toe shot. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AuIAgRMjrw&feature=channel


* via Clint Smith IIRC

AMEN

[dustyvarmint]

(Mods, feel free to move this if needed)

Today I mounted an Aimpoint H-1 on my AR/M4 clone. After I got it zeroed at 50y, I wanted to run some closer drills and see how I liked it. BTW, the H-1 rocks.

My drill of choice was a variation of TLG's FAST test. I varied it in two ways. First, 25 yards was my chosen distance. I looked at 50 yards and decided the time lag was too great. I could hit the 3x5 card, but at a very reduced pace. If I treated it like the MEU-SOC Carbine drill, cool. And I may do so later. But 25y was supported by my range and seemed to balance things nicely.

Second, I switched between 2 shots to the 3x5 card and 4 shots to the paper plate to the reverse. My thought was that the first four were to a BG in the open and the last two were to a BG that reached cover. I also went back to the original just to see what happened. I ended my shootingl with several Bill drills at 25 yards.

Par time for me was between 9 and 10 seconds, regardless of sequence. Breaks were in the .7 to .8 range. Magazine changes were about 3 seconds. All runs were 100% hits as you would expect with a RDS rifle.

Starting position was low ready with a two point sling.

Thoughts: I *really* like this drill and am looking at making it a 50y drill with moving to a more stable position for the shoots to the 3x5 card. Sort of an abbreviated MEU-SOC drill for us cake-eating civilians.

Many thanks to TLG for the concept. :)

Thanks,

I came searching for just this! :D I knew I couldn't have been the first to think of it.

Tomorrow night, FAST with the AR. After no blink practice, of course...

happy shooting, dv

[Jay Cunningham]

I'm not sure a shot to the pelvis is particularly controversial when it comes to rifles or shotguns. Is it?

[Al T.]

Jay, dunno. During the Pelvis Wars over on TFL in the old daze, I sort of lost interest. It's still on my menu, but it's not my first choice of entree.

[Failure2Stop]

I'm not sure a shot to the pelvis is particularly controversial when it comes to rifles or shotguns. Is it?

I don't prefer it over upper torso, unless I have a lot of distance, a group of movers, and something belt-fed.
I am opposed to it at distances that demand rapid shut-down if more critical structures are available for targeting.

As above, I'll shoot anything exposed if that's all I have.

[Jay Cunningham]

I don't prefer it over upper torso, unless I have a lot of distance, a group of movers, and something belt-fed.
I am opposed to it at distances that demand rapid shut-down if more critical structures are available for targeting.

As above, I'll shoot anything exposed if that's all I have.

Right.

I don't see that as particularly controversial.

For pure "effect on target" it would seem the pelvis is fair game for rifles and shotguns, but perhaps not great for pistols... unless that's the only choice you've got.

[John Ralston]

I ran this drill some time back with my Pencil Barrel Carbine...I will have to dig out my times. I do recall being amazed at how much slower I was with the carbine as compared to the pistol, but it was all in the reload.

[Molon]

"Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999, by Dr. Martin Fackler


“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many . . . .

Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. . .

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

[Josh Runkle]

"Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999, by Dr. Martin Fackler


“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many . . . .

Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. . .

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

I had always thought that the reasons were for rapid blood loss leading to faster shock and incapacitation. Along with the enemy possibly not being able to walk. My understanding was that this was for military-type engagements in open environments at distance, not for self-defense pistol shootings.

If I understand correctly, it sounds like these are not the case and that it has no application at all?

[Dan_S]

My understanding was that this was for military-type engagements in open environments at distance, not for self-defense pistol shootings.


Interesting, given that my understanding was that it was for use in cases where body armor might may be a concern, and/or individuals that are under chemical influence...

If it matters where I got this impression, was from a respectable security consultant, trainer, former LEO, and friend.

[Chuck Haggard]

One, maybe we should break off the pelvis shot stuff to a new thread?


Two, possible source for pelvis shots and using handguns;

In talking to Jim Cirillo, I was told the stake-out squad used to target the bad guy's rear when they were trying to run for the door, because shooting for "center mass" with .38 RNL or SWCs often led to bullets going through the bad guy and ending up across the street.

How this started was couple of the guys on the squad spontaneously butt shot bad guys in an attempt to get solid hits that would exit at a downward angle and be less dangerous to bystanders (well trained and thinking shooters working the problem on the fly). They found quite by accident when they shot people in the rear they collapsed, even if the pelvis wasn't broken. This led to the rest of the squad having said tactic in their trick bag and using it as needed.

Jim told me every time they tried that it worked at knocking the guy down, every single time, with more rounds applied as or if needed.

Since Jim is no longer with us, and I wasn't there, I'll leave it at that.

[dustyvarmint]

I've once again stumbled on something I'm really bad at.

Ran FAST at 25 yards with my AR and an RDS last night. Wasn't even worth recording the times, but I worked out some bugs in the reload and discovered just how easy shooting with an RDS is as compared to irons (and my goal is to shoot with irons). Also found I need to investigate my POA/POI while standing as opposed to that of the bench sight in and sitting. Seemed 5" low when sighted in at 35 yards. Or, I'm just anticipating the 3x5 shots - one or the other... :D:D:D

Also found I could do this with my brass catcher on which I like since the range is clay and grass.

Looking forward to some more.

happy shooting, dv

[rob_s]

Are you taking into account the height of the optic or sights above bore? It shouldn't be 3", but depending on your zero distance and mount/optic it could be a factor.

Don't zero from a bench

[Tamara]

This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.

If that gunwriter wrote that the sun rose in the east, Dr. Fackler would spend months publishing rebuttals that this was not actually so, but that the rotation of the earth merely causes the illusion of... Said rebuttals would be full of snide asides like the one above.
His rageboner for said gunwriter does not leave him covered in glory.

[BLR]

So much of non CNS incapacitation is dependent on extraneous factors, drawing definitive conclusions is at best a leap of faith. The psychological and chemical state of a person determines if they will survive a heart shot for seconds or minutes. And a heart isn't a big target. And this is doubly true for pistol rounds.

Non CNS shot placement is all about stacking the deck in your favor. Want to go for the arteries, joints, and nerves routed through the pelvis? Can be legitimately argued both ways, and the degree of validity of argument depends largely on which camp you reside. There are exceedingly few "absolutes" in physiology, and non CNS wounds are not one of them.

**Anecdotal tidbit - My professional circle includes a few MDs. When we are going to a conference, and one of them is presenting, during the dry runs here it's always fun to get them on the defense, then lay a "Pfft. What do you know? You didn't even write a dissertation." Never fails to get them to turn red. :D

[MSparks909]

Curious if there is a distance in which pistol/AR F.A.S.T. times become roughly equal? Say would an experienced pistol/AR shooter post similar times running the F.A.S.T. at 20-25 yards. Obviously the rifle would have faster times at greater distances and vice versa for the pistol but I think a break even distance would be interesting.

[Failure2Stop]

Curious if there is a distance in which pistol/AR F.A.S.T. times become roughly equal? Say would an experienced pistol/AR shooter post similar times running the F.A.S.T. at 20-25 yards. Obviously the rifle would have faster times at greater distances and vice versa for the pistol but I think a break even distance would be interesting.

The platforms are significantly different in employment and time dedicated to task.

Look at the time break-down for a 5 sec FAST:
2 sec for first 2 shots from concealment
2 sec for reload
1 sec for 4 body shots to an 8" circle (.25 splits)
*Sounds a lot easier than it actually is.

For example: at 7 yards a decent carbine shooter should be placing the first shot of a multiple shot string into a 3x5 in about .7-.8 from a low ready/alert, with the second shot coming in about .18 after that.
With a pistol, from concealment, the first shot should be in 1.5-1.75 sec with the second shot coming in around .25-.5.

A pistol reload from concealment runs a bit faster than a rifle reload due to the mechanics of releasing the bolt/slide and reacquiring the support grip. Add to this the employment focus of the rife, i.e.- in conditions in which the pistol is a viable solution to the problem, the pistol should be drawn and employed instead of attempting to bring the rifle back into action. I understand that there are folks that do not always have a secondary, but I generally recommend against that unless you are confident in using your carbine as a blunt force device against potential multiple targets or have a bayonet attached. So, really, rifle reloads are a lower priority than transition to pistol.

To continue this: the value of the FAST sequence of the wide-open shots following the reload is to evaluate ability to regain control of the pistol with the support hand following the reload. This does not transfer to the long-gun with the same degree of necessity or impact to performance.

There are already a ton of good drills with attached standards for riflecraft.
Instead of attempting to shoe-horn a different device into a standard that is intended to test specific aspects of a skillset pertinent to a specific device I highly advise referring to the standards that are proven to test pertinent aspects of the device in question, such as the 400 Aggregate, the Half and Half, the CSAT standards, etc. etc.

[Jay Cunningham]

To continue this: the value of the FAST sequence of the wide-open shots following the reload is to evaluate ability to regain control of the pistol with the support hand following the reload. This does not transfer to the long-gun with the same degree of necessity or impact to performance.

There are already a ton of good drills with attached standards for riflecraft.
Instead of attempting to shoe-horn a different device into a standard that is intended to test specific aspects of a skillset pertinent to a specific device I highly advise referring to the standards that are proven to test pertinent aspects of the device in question, such as the 400 Aggregate, the Half and Half, the CSAT standards, etc. etc.

I agree with Jack.

[Chuck Haggard]

Word!


Having been back to Pat Rogers' carbine class last week, the mod Navy qual was reinforced in my mind as a really, really quality carbine drill/test.

[dustyvarmint]

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=4757


http://youtu.be/w69N5gsxvpM