I would run away...b/c one bad guy is like eleventeen sight pictures, where two or three bad guys is like 1, 2, ahhhh 3, plus ahhhh whatever, I'm just going to run away because of the math alone.
Is it more "tactical" to put 1 bullet in each bad guy first and than follow up on who ever is still looking scary. Or should you shoot each with two bullets and follow up with Mr Scary? Wait how many sight pictures is that? Ehhhh?
I give up.
The extra sight picture is just a way of explaining that you're shooting someone until they're no longer a threat. Typically you don't know if your shots have been successful until you assess the target. If they aren't down then you'd better be ready to shoot again. Also, it's not about just scoring hits, so unless you're so awesome that you're calling head shots to their credit card, odds are you won't know if you're shot was effective until after you stop to assess.
There's a good chance that you could put two rounds into each of your multiple targets and still have just as many threats as before you started shooting. I'm thinking it might be better to shoot one to the ground and then see which of his buddies are still up for a fight.
I tend to think that being hit twice is a better deterrent than seeing a buddy being hit 6 times, especially that it takes time to recognize that buddy was hit.Originally Posted by Kobalt60
I'd agree with you in a case of one attacker, but not in case of three.
this thread has absolutely zero to do with "tactical" situations, even though transitioning fast from threat to threat is obviously important.
And the whole, "training scar" thing. don't buy into it at all. I do a lot of FOF training with various agencies up here and have yet to do anything gamer like in any of the scenarios, be it me as the bad guy, or one the times I get to go a round as a good guy. I shoot my threats, I look around and don't get tunnel vision, and I certainly don't do reloads standing still, in front of someone putting rounds on me. I suppose if all someone did was game stuff, all the time, every time they shot, a "training scar" could develop, but I am much more of the belief system others have written about far better than I, but it basically states "the training scar argument is just an excuse for poor performance in a game".
...and to think today you just have fangs
Rob Engh
BC, Canada
My opinion on transition is two prong: the closer the targets the more I avoid using lower body and the more upper body to move the gun to each target. The more distance or anything requiring more than 45 degrees of traverse, than I will use more lower body and attempt to gain more upper body traversing once on the next target.
As for speed: I try to drive my sights to where I know the next target is (sights stay in my vision). However, if I am unsure or unaware of my next target I use my eyes to find the target and then drive the sights/ gun to the target.
I am pretty fast on target transition on a bank of targets, plate racks, etc. However, longer distances between each target tend to slow me down considerably.
Except it's a much different ballgame when you don't know:
- what target you're shooting next
- where that target is
- whether or not that target is still justifiably a target
- whether that target is still safely engaged
Since you brought up FOF, try this easy experiment:
Shoot an El Prez live-fire for time. Note your transition times.
Ditch all live weapons and gear up with FOF guns. Shoot an El Prez against three human opponents who are told they can do whatever they want (move, etc) as soon as you start your turn. Instruct each of the three opponents that they should continue engaging you until they've been hit in the chest or face four times. Note your transition times.
To make it even more complicated and realistic, put five roll players down range, two of whom are unarmed. Note your transition times.
Being able to drive the gun to a known, identified, green-lit target may speed you up a tenth or two. That's going to be all but noise, statistically, compared to the time it takes to locate, identify, and decide to shoot a given target.
Not sure I am fully tracking. The scenario above, in addition to transitions, adds shooting at moving targets and target discrimination. I think it is given that transitions will be slower. That said, since Rob's initial intent was to discuss the technical aspects of transitions - those won't change, would they?
The "technical aspects of transitions" involve driving the eyes immediately to the next target's position and driving the gun immediately to the next target's position. As soon as you eliminate a known next target and a known position for same, those technical aspects start to break down. This becomes even more true if you are shooting the threat to the ground instead of just firing a pre-determined number of shots and (regardless of effect) moving on to the next target.
This is all true, and I mention using my eyes to grab the next target first. However I am specifically talking about on a range, shooting known targets, that are not moving. Regarding Todd's post, in that scenario, I'd be moving as well, most likely, so there would be a number of different things happening. It would be significantly unrelated to my original post though, however the next time we are out doing FOF, I'll try it.
...and to think today you just have fangs
Rob Engh
BC, Canada
Reply With Quote