Target Focused Shooting

[LukeNCMX]

I just got done listening to the latest Xray Alpha IG live and the topic was splits but it also covered target focused shooting. Jared Reston was a guest and he spoke about a shooting where he engaged the suspect with a string of fire and during the string the suspect dropped out of view and the final rounds of the string impacted where the suspect was but since the suspect dropped they were misses. According to Jared this had a significant impact on his training resulting in his promotion of controlled rate of fire at about .25 second splits to allow enough time to prevent overshooting.

Chris Palmer (Phoenix PD instructor and former SWAT) brought up the concept that the overshooting is likely tied to being dot/sight focused. Chris added that when a real target focus is employed, the visual cue of the target moving out of view would have been the stop signal (a stop signal that can be reliably counted on no matter how fast the splits) and that a proper employment of a real target focus is the right solution to the phenomena that Reston (and of course thousands of other classically trained shooters) have experienced.

I had never heard the benefit of target focus for defensive shooting being put in this exact way and it was very thought provoking.

One big question that is the crux of this concept that I have explored in my own training is what is "real target focus." Practicing transitions with a red dot pistol and playing with varying focal depths, dot occlusion, different brightness levels etc. to push my performance has resulted in a few ideas I am curious if others have shared:

Maintaining a perfect target focus focal depth on a small spot on the target is hard. It is especially hard to maintain that target focal depth just as the dot arrives at the target and through the confirmation process.

Dot occlusion does not equal target focus. Dot occlusion promotes looking at the target instead of tunneling vision through the sight(s) but the final element of focal depth is not perfect with just dot occlusion.

A bright dot challenges the ability to keep your focal depth on the target. A bright dot can be a useful way to challenge your vision and progressively improve your target focal depth discipline.

A solid consistent index that you can trust is a necessary precursor to fully exploring the target focused concept.

[JCN]

@LukeNCMX

Take my opinion FWIW and some would say I have no input because I am not nor have not been in a firefight and I should defer to those that have like Reston.

But I disagree with Reston and he’s going about addressing the primary issue indirectly.

The issue is when cognitive overload locks someone into a certain assessment and they fail to have the bandwidth to know that more variables exist.

“Meat moves.”

“Swingers and max traps move.”

Regardless of the split time, you have to take the context of potential movement into account.

We have that analogy in car racing.

You can look at the apex. But if you don’t understand the dynamics of what has to go on there, it doesn’t matter if you’re looking or not.

It’s not the focus, it’s the understanding and awareness of the target movement.

IMO.

[Backspin]

Speaking directly to the topic at hand, I had my best results today while shooting doubles on a vertical 3x5 index card while using a fairly bright dot (solid 3moa dot starting to bloom slightly) and occluded optic. I felt it gave me the ability to be target focused while still tracking the dot in the periphery. Combining occlusion and brighter dot allowed me to hit the center of the card with .22 splits. Prior to that adjustment, I was throwing the second shot low.

The last time I occluded the dot live fire, it wasn’t as bright (slightly translucent, no bloom) and I had a hard time being aware of the dot in recoil, which lead to inconsistent follow-up shots.

Listening to Pranka’s IG live, it sounded like Reston and the rest of the panel were talking past each other. I’m not sure which side I agree with more, because I see each side has validity regarding different aspects of the big picture (training to ideal competency).

Reston advocates for .25 splits based on popular (though perhaps incomplete) research on human reaction time. Pranka says the limit potential is below .25 if one trains and executes the shooting process optimally.

I think Matt’s point of “shooting to one’s vision” to avoid extra shots seems simple enough (and very well might be the answer), but how to train it organizationally is perhaps where the disagreement comes in.

My perspective has been shaped by being involved at my agency in planning/executing in-service training, helping teach instructor certification courses, and assisting academy training. From what I’ve seen from my peers, LE firearms training typically goes between the extremes of overconfirming sights/trigger, to using ego to dictate the “aiming” and cadence of shot. I can see how imposing a cadence of sorts gives an organization (whose mission encompasses far more than firearms proficiently) a reasonable goal to attain/maintain. Quite frankly, the vast majority of cops cannot execute .5 splits for consistent hits to the A Zone, large part is because LE as an industry does not teach index properly especially at the academy level.

[Paul Blackburn]

Was this IG live recorded and available to listen to somewhere?

[MVS]

So just addressing a couple points, for me target focus is not difficult but like the op says, focussing on just a small spot is. That is something I am working on but not making great progress. Second point would be, I would argue that .25 splits are not controlled by you average shooter, LE or otherwise.

[GJM]

Without knowing the size of the target, the distance of the target, the type firearm and load, it is hard to comment on what .25 means. Steve Anderson followed the super squad at CO Nationals, and stated he didn't see a split faster than .30 on day one, and these are obviously talented shooters with competition optimized pistols and loads. On the other end of the spectrum, I was squadded with a woman at a recent match with a MPX that shot low teens splits, and .15 was slow for her.

What is more interesting to me, is that I almost never hear really good shooters talk about splits, and if they do it is to say that splits are not as important as lesser shooters think.

[JCN]

0.15 pistol splits are like sub-second draws.

The great ones have the mechanics to do it, but they choose not to in order to guarantee hits.

That’s very different than someone with poor mechanics and poor recoil control who can’t ever.

Splits are meaningless without the context of the mechanical accuracy underlying the motion.

If you have someone who can sub-second draw, their 1.5 second draw is more accurate than someone who can’t get the gun out in 1.5 seconds.

Same thing with splits. If someone can split 0.12-0.15s all day long, their 0.20 is going to be much different in accuracy and precision than a goober who blindly splits 0.25 on a good day.

But yeah. Best shooters can split <0.15s on demand and do on appropriate targets…. But don’t in inappropriate targets.

That’s really the crux of it. What’s your skill level and what pace is appropriate to your mechanics.

0.25 is vastly different depending on what your floor is.

Training splits is mechanics training. Like the bill drill it’s not a recommendation for a tactic.

Just like training draws and index.

[JCN]

So just addressing a couple points, for me target focus is not difficult but like the op says, focussing on just a small spot is. That is something I am working on but not making great progress. Second point would be, I would argue that .25 splits are not controlled by you average shooter, LE or otherwise.

Exactly! For people that require 0.50 to hit a 4” circle at 10 yards, 0.25 is hosing.

For people that can hit that same circle in 0.18, a 25 is well controlled and allows for some processing and refinement time.

Numbers are just numbers. It scales off the base mechanics.

I’d also like to clarify that focal plane versus attention are different things and that comes into play too.

You can focus on a spot and get tunnel vision. Or you can fuzzy focus eyes but still have distinct attention to behavior and movement.

Have you ever purposely looked straight ahead but intensely concentrated on something in your peripheral vision to not raise suspicion?

It’s more complicated than just looking. It’s actually seeing and comprehending and that’s tough to do sometimes.

[LukeNCMX]

I’d also like to clarify that focal plane versus attention are different things and that comes into play too.

You can focus on a spot and get tunnel vision. Or you can fuzzy focus eyes but still have distinct attention to behavior and movement.

Have you ever purposely looked straight ahead but intensely concentrated on something in your peripheral vision to not raise suspicion?

It’s more complicated than just looking. It’s actually seeing and comprehending and that’s tough to do sometimes.

This is what I am spending a good amount of time exploring. Lazering vision into a small spot while being challenged to keep track of the dot peripherally vs forcing the dot into peripheral vision but keeping track of it at the same time. So far I am getting a little bit better results with the second approach but I am not sold yet. I can imagine a razor sharp index coupled with lazer focus might have higher potential.

[Clusterfrack]

Good thread. My take is that shooting to a cadence is usually a training exercise. Prescribed shooting to a cadence has value for some classifiers. Shooting to a cadence in a match or a gunfight is a bad idea.