When is “missing,” not “missing” a target?

[JCN]

What is the "Bakersfield drill"? No google results.

The genius of the Bakersfield is the almost full points for “near misses.”

That’s what Weems didn’t understand when he proposed making the second scoring zone 8 instead of 10 points. That fundamentally changes the risk/rewards and discourages going as fast.

For example if the target is 8” and that’s 10 points… but the next scoring zone is -10… I’m going to go at my 4” circle pace. That might be a 0.25 split.

If the target is 8” and 10 points… and the next scoring zone is 5 points, I might go at a pace where I make a 6” circle and it might be 0.20 splits.

If the target is 8” and 10… and the next scoring is 9 points, I’ll go at a pace that uses 7.5” and that might be 0.15 splits.

Here are two videos illustrating that I made a couple years ago (I’m a better shooter now).

It’s at 17 yards.



Look at how the pace changes when I choose to confirm more and make it into a “can’t miss” drill.



Without exploring and developing capabilities, you don’t know what you don’t know and you can’t dial it back when you need to. Without dialing it back too much.

[Utm]

@HCM
@AMC
@Utm

How many of those guys will stand by the length of time they’ve been trainers…

Pedigrees and all that.

At least in 5 years we will be able to identify them quickly…

They’ll be the only ones shooting irons…. I keed, I keed. I still daily a manual transmission. But I’m not delusional and know a PDK/DCT will smoke the pants off it in performance.

We are issued RDS so there are no hangups there

[HCM]

I think PF would be overrun with those guys if it weren’t for you guys…

I’m just a gamer, my assessments don’t matter to them.

Even at the LGS, students look at me like I have two heads when I suggest they start with dots over irons…

Agree with you guys that irons is actually the intermediate skill and dots are the basic one.

Hey, like I said in the other thread, you’ll know RDS pistols have really arrived when all the new guns are optics ready an they start making irons only guns as “retro” models like the current renaissance of carry handle AR’s.

[Clusterfrack]

Seems to be what Steve Anderson teaches, you can work speed, or you can work accuracy, you can't really work both at the same time.

I've trained with Steve twice, and he's a fantastic instructor for beginning and intermediate shooters. As a B class shooter, the "speed mode", "accuracy mode", and "match mode" concepts were transformative, and really helped me get better. Now, I strongly disagree that you can't train speed and accuracy at the same time. I do that every practice session. As well, "match mode" isn't as useful as it used to be. Now I think of it more as a continuum of risk management. Pushing means taking more risks.

[Clusterfrack]

What we're discussing here is the difference between 'Training' to improve performance and 'Practicing' an existing standard. I agree that most of the LE Firearms world is stuck in the latter paradigm, for a multitude of reasons....including the quite reasonable emphasis on accuracy and accountability. Ultimately the issue come down to a lack of resources and focus devoted to this area, so your instructors rarely understand the difference between those things, much less the individual officers. The Trainers don't understand how to train.

Great post. Training while trying to never miss is like being unwilling to get submitted on the mat or only sparring with people who are less skilled. Failure is a necessary part of getting better.

[BK14]

Starting in competition, then going through an academy, and now helping teach our recruits firearms, my biggest struggle has been teaching the balance. I work with guys who go fast for the gram (their critical incident did not result in any real-world hits). So, how do you teach to push speed to find that limit, teach accuracy to push that limit, teach both at once, but ingrain that real-world you need to slow down to guarantee hits?

I could shoot mid-teen splits in bill drills, but that doesn’t mean that’s the pace I should be shooting in a real-world engagement. I know that I train at speed, so in real-world I ideally can scale back on pace to process, while still being “fast” compared to the untrained. But how do you train yourself to have that control after you’ve trained the speed component?

[JCN]

I could shoot mid-teen splits in bill drills, but that doesn’t mean that’s the pace I should be shooting in a real-world engagement. I know that I train at speed, so in real-world I ideally can scale back on pace to process, while still being “fast” compared to the untrained. But how do you train yourself to have that control after you’ve trained the speed component?

Wobble zone and vision.

I don’t shoot to a speed, I shoot to a vision.

Let me explain.

I can do a video if that helps, let me know.

The more confidence I need in “not missing,” the farther I keep the dot away from the edges of the scoring border… being able to judge and track this with movement and speed is what people should be training. It’s part of advanced “shot calling” and why it’s so important.

@HCM this is an exact parallel to my “race track 1 foot margin.”

If I need to make sure I hit something, I make sure the vision is two dot widths from the edge of the target.

If I kind of need to make sure I hit something but a miss isn’t catastrophic, then I’ll allow one dot width margin.

If I want to hit something fast and misses aren’t penal, I’ll push it until there’s not much daylight between the dot edge and the edge of the target.

Now this assumes a 5-6 MOA dot and it’s why I really like that size dot.

It adds some visual representation of your “wobble zone.”

It gives you a built in ranging reticle for hits, width and margin that scales with your wobble zone.

It’s also why I don’t like smaller dots (you might think you’re safely in bounds but you have a 4 MOA physical trigger wobble with a 2 MOA dot…) and why I don’t like large dots like a 7-9 MOA triangle or chevron (you lose the auto ranging function if you’re trying to hold the whole reticle within the target it’s needlessly slow).

Again if that doesn’t make sense, I can make a video.

If people are interested in an audio/visual representation, I can make a video.

So I go at the speed needed to confidently put hits 6-12 MOA away from the edge.

I scale and trigger off that vision.



So for example in a video like this, when I present the dot on target, I’m giving it 6MOA space from the black border (one whole dot width) and 2-3 dot widths from the hostage targets.

I know I’m not going to miss or hit a good guy because I gave it plenty of margin and I train to know how large my wobble zone at speed and under recoil is.

(Obviously in real life there will be more complex factors and you might choose to have more margin and go slower than that, but the concept still applies. I’m reminded of the video where the bad guy had a hostage and a LEO from up close shot him in the head at close range with a shotgun while they were both moving… he KNEW his wobble zone without delay and knew the “safe” margin of his skills and his weapon with a hostage just inches away).

EDIT: this one

https://funker530.com/video/san-dieg...t-to-the-face/

[LukeNCMX]

So, how do you teach to push speed to find that limit, teach accuracy to push that limit, teach both at once, but ingrain that real-world you need to slow down to guarantee hits?

-Use minor hit factor scoring on a mix of open and partial targets
-Teach a durable grip and an isolated trigger press at speed that allows for predictive shooting
-Teach sight confirmation based on target difficulty
-Give students a training environment that promotes discovery and exploration of new limits

I could shoot mid-teen splits in bill drills, but that doesn’t mean that’s the pace I should be shooting in a real-world engagement. I know that I train at speed, so in real-world I ideally can scale back on pace to process, while still being “fast” compared to the untrained. But how do you train yourself to have that control after you’ve trained the speed component?

I don't think LE trainers are capable of cracking the code on overcoming cops' instinct for self preservation and getting cops to shoot "slow" when they are faced with a race to save their own lives. I think the realistic path is accepting cops are going to shoot as fast as they can until they think the danger has passed and giving them the skills to get good hits at that pace.

[HCM]

I don't think LE trainers are capable of cracking the code on overcoming cops' instinct for self preservation and getting cops to shoot "slow" when they are faced with a race to save their own lives. I think the realistic path is accepting cops are going to shoot as fast as they can until they think the danger has passed and giving them the skills to get good hits at that pace.

Assuming appropriate selection and retention of personnel and adequate traning time / incentives they can and they do but it’s not a technical shooting issue. It’s an emotional control issue.

I’ve posted this before, but if you watch enough officer involved shooting videos you see three basic responses. At one end of the bell curve, you see Officers essentially panic and expend all their ammunition as quickly as possible, faster than they can effectively hit.

With the majority in the middle, we see them react to an attack with an initial burst of rapid fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, followed by an evaluation/regrouping/regaining emotional control phase at which point if they haven’t gotten a lucky hit they focus, apply their training and get their hits. Usually at a reactive or deliberate pace depending on their level of traning.

The other end of the bell curve are what I call the nerd assassins. They are the serious shooters, martial arts dudes etc who simply react and apply their training. The recent Tacoma PD OIS in which an officer calmly took out an armed suspect with a single shot at 180 ish yards is an example of this. The Phoenix PD officer who made a 50 yard hostage rescue shot on a suspect holding an infant is another.

There’s an OIS video out of Louisville KY in which three officers engage a suspect and each displays one of the above behaviors. The “nerd assassin” officer in this case applies 4 rounds from a pistol at a reactive pace, ending the fight.

The problem with your argument is that an officer who loses emotional control, even temporarily as we see in most of the bell curve, is the antithesis of the emotional / mental state needed for applying high levels of skill.

Along those lines, very few officers, practice things as fundamental as grip draw and presentation once they get out of the Academy. Again, if you watch a lot of OIS videos, you’ll see a lot of bad / funky grips when officers are reacting to assaults. This is also the primary driver behind why we see more semi auto pistol malfunction in OIS than we see on the range.

If one is so amped up that they can’t get a proper grip out of the holster, they are unlikely to be successful in the application of shooting at a reactive /predictive pace. The times recorded on the timer for controlled reactive / predictive fire and panic fire may be similar but the mental / emotional states which produce them are polar opposites.

[Clusterfrack]

Starting in competition, then going through an academy, and now helping teach our recruits firearms, my biggest struggle has been teaching the balance. I work with guys who go fast for the gram (their critical incident did not result in any real-world hits). So, how do you teach to push speed to find that limit, teach accuracy to push that limit, teach both at once, but ingrain that real-world you need to slow down to guarantee hits?

I could shoot mid-teen splits in bill drills, but that doesn’t mean that’s the pace I should be shooting in a real-world engagement. I know that I train at speed, so in real-world I ideally can scale back on pace to process, while still being “fast” compared to the untrained. But how do you train yourself to have that control after you’ve trained the speed component?

Agreed! For me the Bill drill is a diagnostic exercise: it tests ability to grip the gun so it returns predictably, and do it with minimal tension. There may be some applications for shooting a string of shots as fast as possible toward a single target, but that's not the point. In competition (at least for well-designed stages), there's a mix of target difficulty that requires switching between predictive and reactive shooting. All the top shooters I know default to reactive because points matter, and only stomp on the gas when the targets are very easy. That's especially true for Production shooters, and is why I like that division best.