Wayne Dobbs Interview

[Nephrology]

Your response seems to be on with part of what I was getting at. You and those more knowledgeable about human anatomy and experienced with damage to various parts of it are a valuable resource for putting things in perspective when it comes to hits,damage and responses to targeted areas. I think that should always be included. However what person being shot at and or hit in the torso solidly is going to be completely unaffected ? Yes there are people on drugs/alcohol or mentally in a state where they do not care about their life or well being or are enraged that sometimes they don't care. I also understand that many don't realize they have been hit or the seriousness of it but in the moment how likely is it to have no effect?

On a similar note if the hit rate for hitting a human anywhere on their body is 50% then is a focus at hitting a 6 inch diameter circle high center chest a reasonably practical objective for anyone but the most skilled?

I am not arguing what the hit ratio actually is other than to indicate it isn't 90%+ anywhere on a human threat in real shootings.

Obviously in "the real world" this all can and does vary highly. As I am sure you know already, bullets do weird things. That said in my relatively limited experience, patients who have been shot very quickly sort into "Dead" and "not dead" categories, usually well before they hit the doors. At the end of the day which pile they end up in depends entirely on what anatomical structures are violated by the bullet (or other trauma). The structures that put people in the "dead" pile are heart & great vessels & the brain/upper spinal column. I can also definitely tell you that I've seen people who have had non-life threatening traumatic injuries who required a lot of restraints (of the physical & chemical varieties) to keep them under control and were not obviously under the influence of any drugs.

As a shooter - and maybe Wayne can speak more on this himself - I've always been a fan of the "aim small, miss small" philosophy. Sure, in reality, there is nothing hard or magical about 5.5". However I'd still rather make that my performance baseline so that if I am more likely to "rise to the level of my training" as it were. I think the point about goals (like a 5" circle) isn't that you will always make them, but that they guide you to a level of performance that you find satisfactory. I happen to agree entirely with Wayne's.

Just my 0.02 USD

[octagon]

Obviously in "the real world" this all can and does vary highly. As I am sure you know already, bullets do weird things. That said in my relatively limited experience, patients who have been shot very quickly sort into "Dead" and "not dead" categories, usually well before they hit the doors. At the end of the day which pile they end up in depends entirely on what anatomical structures are violated by the bullet (or other trauma). The structures that put people in the "dead" pile are heart & great vessels & the brain/upper spinal column. I can also definitely tell you that I've seen people who have had non-life threatening traumatic injuries who required a lot of restraints (of the physical & chemical varieties) to keep them under control and were not obviously under the influence of any drugs.

As a shooter - and maybe Wayne can speak more on this himself - I've always been a fan of the "aim small, miss small" philosophy. Sure, in reality, there is nothing hard or magical about 5.5". However I'd still rather make that my performance baseline so that if I am more likely to "rise to the level of my training" as it were. I think the point about goals (like a 5" circle) isn't that you will always make them, but that they guide you to a level of performance that you find satisfactory. I happen to agree entirely with Wayne's.

Just my 0.02 USD

Fair enough I appreciate your experiance,knowledge and opinion. Coming from law enforcement background I can totally understand over generous targeting areas(like 3 or 4 times the A zone on some qualification targets) and too often people thinking it is just fine. Our agency required 100% hits on the silhouette for every qualification(Handgun,rifle,shotgun at all ranges) Guys thought this made them good shooters. This was with fairly generous time limits too. My personal standard was 100% hits on a sheet of typing paper and most within a sheet of paper folded in half(4.250 X11") in as fast as I could shoot the stage. Different strokes and all

[Wayne Dobbs]

As a shooter - and maybe Wayne can speak more on this himself - I've always been a fan of the "aim small, miss small" philosophy. Sure, in reality, there is nothing hard or magical about 5.5". However I'd still rather make that my performance baseline so that if I am more likely to "rise to the level of my training" as it were. I think the point about goals (like a 5" circle) isn't that you will always make them, but that they guide you to a level of performance that you find satisfactory. I happen to agree entirely with Wayne's.

Just my 0.02 USD

It doesn't matter how you describe the process: aim small, miss small or whatever else, if you practice on overly large targets (most of them out there) you see mediocre to bad operational results. When you practice on a tight, realistic sized zone and achieve repeated success at that, you get good results in street shootings. I'm aware of one organization that did their training on three and six inch dots at distances to 10 yards and carried on excellent recurrent training and achieved astounding LE shooting results. Over 24 OIS incidents, they shot at a 90%+ hit rate (90%+ of the shots they fired struck the offender targets) and of those 24 incidents, 22 of the offenders are no longer with us.

The methodology works, even though it's not sexy or cool. It's simply an excellent way to learn excellent operational shooting.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Fair enough I appreciate your experiance,knowledge and opinion. Coming from law enforcement background I can totally understand over generous targeting areas(like 3 or 4 times the A zone on some qualification targets) and too often people thinking it is just fine. Our agency required 100% hits on the silhouette for every qualification(Handgun,rifle,shotgun at all ranges) Guys thought this made them good shooters. This was with fairly generous time limits too. My personal standard was 100% hits on a sheet of typing paper and most within a sheet of paper folded in half(4.250 X11") in as fast as I could shoot the stage. Different strokes and all

That's exactly what we need to be achieving in training and qualification (not the same thing, by the way).

[octagon]

That's exactly what we need to be achieving in training and qualification (not the same thing, by the way).

I can't say we had 90% hit rate but we didn't have an officer shot or injured in a dozen shootings during my tenure at a medium sized dept but we changed training so drastically over the years it can't be clearly delineated what exactly worked better or worse. We started with B27 targets (1) at distances from 7-25 yards with very long times but scores and better accuracy equaled higher scores. We changed over time to no score pass/fail 3 zones for hits with 100% hits on silhouette but much shorter time limits, multiple targets, turning and moving targets along with Simunitions,more one hand shooting and ranges from 3 yards to 15 plus more shooting positions,movement etc.

The end results are all good with no goodguys injured and badguys always dead or in custody so no complaints.

[Nephrology]

Also, Wayne - I just realized that I have a copy of the revolver you started your career with (4" M19-3). It was the first "nice" S&W I ever purchased (my first was a no-lock 442). I really need to buy more K frames.

[rojocorsa]

Hmmm, I guess I'm not doing too bad considering I mainly shot at 2" circles or 3x5 cards...

[psalms144.1]

While true to my very limited understanding is there a point where the realistic target size would be impractical to the point of those competitive series and with hit rates in defensive shootings what they are with entire human bodies considered a hit should the focus be balanced with practical application?

My experience is this. When I had the latitude to run my own team, I took my agency's standard qualification, which is shot on a Transtar target (human silhouette larger than me, and I'm often confused with Sasquatch), with a then passing score of 210. Over this target I superimposed my own crude anatomical standards - a "T" roughly 3" wide running through the ocular orbit and down the approximate spinal column to about the diaphragm. This became my team's "5 ring". I put a triangle from the nominal base of the throat to and across the nominal area of the nipples (using my own wider than necessary body as a template), and this became the "3 ring." Everything else on the target became a 1 point hit. Any rounds off the silhouette was an automatic fail. Then we shot our standard qual on the modified targets.

Before my new target, average qualification scores were about 280-290 out of 300 (the standards on time are very LONG, and the target is very BIG). After introducing the new target, average score initially dropped to about 205. When I made qualifying on the new target (210 out of 300) a requirement for operational travel, $h1+ got real, and the boys knuckled down (especially after I pulled a guy off a 2-week advance to Paris because he failed the qual). After a couple of months, the average was into the 250ish range, and some of us were getting back into the 280s.

The other trick I would pull, when my guys were getting too deliberate, is I'd throw up the modified targets, and then run the course of fire by cutting the "standard" engagement times in half. Quickest engagement using this scheme was two rounds from the holster, retention shooting, at 1.5 yards in 1.5 seconds - not even vaguely challenging for some of us, but freaked some guys WAY the fuck out. I'd use the "traditional" scoring rings for that, and, not surprisingly, scores were MUCH closer to our original average than to scoring on the modified targets. My take away is that, if you're given a huge target area, you can shoot very quickly and still "meet standards."

The biggest difference I had over an average LE qualification was that all of my guys wanted to be there, and wanted to do the jobs I gave them, so they were VERY motivated to meet my standards. I can see where this would be a problem in a typical once/year qualification agency.

I also agree there is a difference between qualification and training, but, unfortunately for a lot of LE, the 1-3 hours we see our guys at the qualification line is the ONLY training they'll do all year. And, hell, the don't even show up for that if they can get away with it (I know one agent who, through a series of overseas postings and deployments, hadn't even SEEN his issued firearm for over 7 years).

[octagon]

psalms 144.4 you hit the nail on the head with that one. Key being guys wanting to be there and perform. We had plenty of guys and gals that fit the later with only a few that fit the former. We had a policy of 3 total chances to qualify and then a required remedial training of 4 hours one on one then 3 more chances. This was poorly enforced when admin complained they had too many detectives out of the office so the powers that be gave in. Retraining became less and less as did training time and budget until courses had to be "adjusted" to get more people through. Luckily the largest majority were patrol people that realized they needed at least a little skill and we didn't get too stupid but I bet it isn't the only story from LE like it.

The thing I found pleasantly positive was when we would have friendly competitions with DEA or FBI guys and other agencies do a shoot with task force people vs PD people or SWAT vs Patrol and guys would want to come practice a lot more then any change in qualification standards or any other reason. Kind of sad they worried more about their ego than safety.

[SkiDevil]

Great Interview, thanks for sharing. Very insightful.

I hope to take your course if you ever make it out to California Mr. Dobbs.