ToddG
08-19-2013, 08:54 PM
Absent a hostage depiction, I don't get so many fixed shot drills. If the exact number of shots were not defined, it would allow shooters to use skill in calling their shots to make up hits as they see fit, which seems realistic. This would still put a premium on accuracy, since extra shots would run up the clock.
There are two primary benefits of what you call "fixed shot" drills:
easy to administer (both shooter prep and scoring), and
added pressure due to the unresolvable penalty from a miss.
A Bill Drill is a great example: easy to do, easy to set up, easy to measure.
There are also benefits to other approaches. In particular, I'm a big fan of AMRAP (as many rounds as possible) drills. That involves setting a time limit and getting as many hits as you can within that time. It tends to jump over the issue of incrementalism, as well, since you have to improve by one action (whether it's a split or reload or whatever) in order to get another round in the time allotted.
I think it would be a mistake to do all of one or the other, which is why you see most games (USPSA, IDPA, and KSTG for example) all having provisions for both to one extent or the other.
And it's worth noting that almost all of these target engagement schemes are only necessary because it's hard to replicate "realistic" target responses. If you get a chance, a manually controlled turning target system works wonders for this. Shooters draw when the threat appears and continue to engage (intelligently, which may include failure/headshot drills) until the threat disappears. By varying the exposure time you can definitely get people running fast because they don't know how long they have.
Another way to get a similar benefit -- and something I do in AFHS -- is to use a whistle. Blow the whistle the first time, target is a threat. Blow it a second time, target is down. Shooters need to keep on the target until it's down. Some guys will go through ten rounds while the guy next to him fires two. Then on the next run the first guy only gets off two shots and the guy next to him doesn't even get his sights aligned on the target. It can fall apart if there's really a huge disparity of skill on the line but in that case I just tell the too-fast students to start using smaller target zones sooner (only shoot two to the body before transitioning to the head, or transition to a 2" instead of the 3x5, and so forth).
There are two primary benefits of what you call "fixed shot" drills:
easy to administer (both shooter prep and scoring), and
added pressure due to the unresolvable penalty from a miss.
A Bill Drill is a great example: easy to do, easy to set up, easy to measure.
There are also benefits to other approaches. In particular, I'm a big fan of AMRAP (as many rounds as possible) drills. That involves setting a time limit and getting as many hits as you can within that time. It tends to jump over the issue of incrementalism, as well, since you have to improve by one action (whether it's a split or reload or whatever) in order to get another round in the time allotted.
I think it would be a mistake to do all of one or the other, which is why you see most games (USPSA, IDPA, and KSTG for example) all having provisions for both to one extent or the other.
And it's worth noting that almost all of these target engagement schemes are only necessary because it's hard to replicate "realistic" target responses. If you get a chance, a manually controlled turning target system works wonders for this. Shooters draw when the threat appears and continue to engage (intelligently, which may include failure/headshot drills) until the threat disappears. By varying the exposure time you can definitely get people running fast because they don't know how long they have.
Another way to get a similar benefit -- and something I do in AFHS -- is to use a whistle. Blow the whistle the first time, target is a threat. Blow it a second time, target is down. Shooters need to keep on the target until it's down. Some guys will go through ten rounds while the guy next to him fires two. Then on the next run the first guy only gets off two shots and the guy next to him doesn't even get his sights aligned on the target. It can fall apart if there's really a huge disparity of skill on the line but in that case I just tell the too-fast students to start using smaller target zones sooner (only shoot two to the body before transitioning to the head, or transition to a 2" instead of the 3x5, and so forth).