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

[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.