Speaking of steel. I have 3 stationary, ringing steel targets. They are the size of the minus zero and minus one of an IDPA target. I find that I miss them a lot more than I get minus 3 hits or misses on an IDPA target. Aim small???
Speaking of steel. I have 3 stationary, ringing steel targets. They are the size of the minus zero and minus one of an IDPA target. I find that I miss them a lot more than I get minus 3 hits or misses on an IDPA target. Aim small???
My agency's qualification target is the "Transition Target III" - AKA Blue Man v.2. The scoring is, basically, anywhere in the head/neck or center thorax down to about belly-button is a "5", anything inside a 24"-ish circle centered (more or less) on the "5" zone is a "3", anything else is a "1" Using this target and our standard qualification course, I found that at least 50% of the guys on my last team could shoot 290+ out of 300 on demand, without really waking up from a semi-zombie-esque state. The rest of the team (except for some really challenged fledgling pistoleers) could routinely shoot 270 or better - and my agency's requirement is 210 to pass.
I personally don't feel that that is a reasonable solution to showing if a given team member is ready to go on high-threat worldwide protection missions, so, I tinkered a little. What I did was make a stencil - a T-shaped column about 2.5" wide, with the top of the "T" being about 5" side to side, centered on the TSIII "head," and the column running down to about sternum height. To that I added a scientifically developed (by using my own body and a tape measure) triangle to represent the "golden triangle" of nipple-nipple-base of the throat.
The center "T", roughly approximating the CNS, became our new "5" ring, the Golden Triangle became the "3" ring, everything else was a "1". We kept the same time standards and COF, but added the twist that ANY shot off silhouette was an automatic fail, and failing the qualification became a "grounding" (no travel) until the next qualification opportunity.
Suddenly, I found my Zombies desperately clutching at "line breaker" rounds in the CNS and arguing scoring - and, after a couple of guys missed out on plum missions because they threw rounds at the 25 yard line, EVERYONE got serious about making hits count. Average qual scores, previously in the upper 270s range, went to the high 2-teens; and my best shooters were ecstatic to shoot at 250.
What does this prove? Not sure, but I like to think that the added stress on the qual line would make my guys just a little more prepared for real world bumps in the night. And, when guys would pee and moan about me being an "accuracy nazi", we'd run the qual again, standard scoring, but cut the iterative times in half - and guys were pleasantly surprised that their hits didn't increase all that radically.
Regards,
Kevin
IMHO, civilians need to train to a higher level of accuracy than cops and feds. Reason being that we're not protected by sovereign immunity and shared liability for stray bullets. Agencies need to adjust their standards every once in a while so that the "right" number of agents can pass (or else everyone could be held to HRT standards for marksmanship...) Normal civilians can and will (almost certainly) be held criminally and civilly (sp?) responsible for any round that strikes a bystander. Agents of the state are rarely if ever held personally responsible (aside from administrative actions) for bad shoots on a primary target, much less bystanders. Thus, upper A zone only hits earning scores on speed drills. Is that crazy?Originally Posted by psalms144.1
Great post, Kevin. This may or may not fit with this thread, but related:
Troops tend to develop a psychological and/or physical dependency on targets that can be downright destructive. Repetition ingrains methods to game the target, learn the holds to compensate for their errors, manipulate their time, and keep their shooting mindset about passing a standard instead of prevailing in a fight. It's worse when the standards are unrealistically generous, which employee retention tends to favor.
I've run Q courses on a photo target without scoring zones, and applied an undisclosed overlay after the fact. The whining was loud, but the resulting effort much more deliberate. Other variations include not disclosing the par time until scoring, or setting a maximum cumulative time for the entire Q they have to budget against a known or unknown accuracy standard.
OAK,
I "generally" use the 8" rule. Generally.
Most of the commercial 2D targets that I find worthwhile tend to include it, and given what I have seen in terms of effectiveness of rounds placed IVO those 8" of torso or skull, I have no reason to believe that 8" is an overly large "acceptable" accuracy target area. At the same time, the targets I "like" also have the outline so faded or blended in that it is difficult to discern beyond about the 5 yard line, thus putting focus back to the center of available mass versus an arbitrary sized target which may or may not be an anatomically correct representation. But I also use plain target outlines, and add my own circles using a roll of riggers tape or an ~8" plate and tracing around it in pencil. Some are closer to 6 than 8. Or smaller depending on how much tape is left on the roll. I have no issues going to a smaller target, but I won't go above an 8" circle. I also require that hits be inside the lines. It is either all the way, 100% inside the target area, or it is chalked up as a "Miss". Touching the line = miss. This effectively reduces the actual "acceptable accuracy" requirement down to 7.55" if one is using a .45 caliber weapon.
I don't run any courses of fire where there is scoring based on points involved, so having a reduced "Bull" means nothing to me. I have found that for my purposes, and those to whom I provide training, there is little benefit in a scoring system. So I have adopted more of a Pass/Fail approach to graded/qualification courses of fire. Fired shots are either a "hit" or a "miss", and you either "passed" the CoF/Qual or you "failed" it. When training on someone else's CoF, or to someone else's established standard, sure I score according to the directions, but the various "levels" of success are not something I really measure. And more often than not, I tend to adjust those types of CoF's to the Hit/Miss & Pass/Fail I have become used to.
I think it is also important to note that I am generally not shooting/training for points, matches, scores, etc. I don't log/track the minutia details, or concern myself with hundredths of seconds or try to measure how far outside of the AAZ (acceptable accuracy zone) a miss ended up being. For me, "acceptable accuracy" is just that. Acceptable. That is my objective, to be able to put whatever the required number of rounds are into the AAZ, on demand, regardless of conditions or circumstances.
I'm not going to clean house at an IDPA or USPSA (or any other match). I'm good with that. There will always be faster, more accurate shooters than I am. A lot of them are my "students". I'm good with that too. Since the discussion (at least in this split) initiated with the anatomy of potential lethal adversaries, it lends me to believe the context is in training for engaging 3D, living, breathing, thinking targets. In that situation, I don't have to be a top level shooter. I just need to be better than the dude on the other end. In which case, "good enough" really is "good enough".
Last edited by Odin Bravo One; 08-21-2013 at 02:40 AM.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
Heard that.
Jon
Singapore
Ignore Alien Orders
I had a marksmanship training target designed to my specifcations which uses a 6" circle in the (equivalent) top of an IPSC A/IDPA -0 area. In my world there is certainly a place for the 8" circle but I'm much more concerned with my students maintaining a tighter accuracy standard - I feel it's the least I can do for them. The same target has a "face box" which is 3.5" square dead center of the head. I've always felt that the IDPA -0 head was overly generous and that that the IPSC head A zone was a little too restrictive. I think a 3x5 card is better, and I understand the concept of training to shoot for the ocular window, but IMO I think training to shoot "center mass" of the head makes more sense.
The above is specifically used for marksmanship training; I also like to use 1/4 scale steel targets and 3D cardboard targets with hidden balloons, and occasionally use the VTAC target.
For simulation of humanoid threats at paper-target relevant distances, I really like this guy:
http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=TAC-MAN
Stick a piece of cardboard about 4" back from the front of the chest and you have rough central placement of the heart/major vascular structures of the upper torso. Stick an appropriately sized target (I like 5x8 cards) to the cardboard. Same principle for the head; cardboard about 3" deep from the bridge of the nose and stick appropriate target to back of cardboard (while I prefer 3" circles for head-shot stuff, I generally use a 3x5 card for simplicity and ease).
For repeated use, one of those plastic paper protector sleeves can be used with decent effect, but tape the edges down with liberal use of duct tape and spray-glue.
Put a shirt on it, and slice the back open so you can easily access the scoring zones for performance verification, replacement, and repair.
What you get is a target that can be shot at angles of obliquity past 45 degrees while giving an accurate representation of where those bullets need to be traversing inside the human target for higher probability of success.
Notes: Change the shirt often, otherwise shooters will just shoot at the existing shot-holes.
Use shirts with different colors and patterns, and match colors to shooter optics/sights to give them a worst case scenario at some point (think bright red shirt for a red-dot user during darkness with a white light)
Vary height and angle of targets.
For getting the point across during marksmanship training as to where to put bullets and with what degree of precision to do so, there are numerous good targets out there.
Yeah, I've even made my own flavor to fit my needs, but I believe that by and large you can do just fine with some IDPA/IPSC targets, a few hundred 5x8 and 3x5 index cards, and some B8 refaces placed appropriately.
Director Of Sales
Knight's Armament Company
That's awesome! I've got to get a few of those.For simulation of humanoid threats at paper-target relevant distances, I really like this guy:
http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=TAC-MAN
Stick a piece of cardboard about 4" back from the front of the chest and you have rough central placement of the heart/major vascular structures of the upper torso. Stick an appropriately sized target (I like 5x8 cards) to the cardboard. Same principle for the head; cardboard about 3" deep from the bridge of the nose and stick appropriate target to back of cardboard (while I prefer 3" circles for head-shot stuff, I generally use a 3x5 card for simplicity and ease).
For repeated use, one of those plastic paper protector sleeves can be used with decent effect, but tape the edges down with liberal use of duct tape and spray-glue.
Put a shirt on it, and slice the back open so you can easily access the scoring zones for performance verification, replacement, and repair.
What you get is a target that can be shot at angles of obliquity past 45 degrees while giving an accurate representation of where those bullets need to be traversing inside the human target for higher probability of success.
Notes: Change the shirt often, otherwise shooters will just shoot at the existing shot-holes.
Use shirts with different colors and patterns, and match colors to shooter optics/sights to give them a worst case scenario at some point (think bright red shirt for a red-dot user during darkness with a white light)
Vary height and angle of targets.
For getting the point across during marksmanship training as to where to put bullets and with what degree of precision to do so, there are numerous good targets out there.
Yeah, I've even made my own flavor to fit my needs, but I believe that by and large you can do just fine with some IDPA/IPSC targets, a few hundred 5x8 and 3x5 index cards, and some B8 refaces placed appropriately.
Speaking of shirts on targets: I despise shirts that cover non-reactive targets, especially in competition. Their goal is to increase the "real life-ity" of the stage but all they do is add another layer of artificiality. Being able to see bullet holes at least gives folks some way to assess the target after it's been engaged and decide whether it needs more shooting. With the shirt, all you can do is fire a predetermined number of rounds.
Shirts in conjunction with a reactive target (even if the only "reaction" is that the instructor/RO is controlling the start & stop of the firing sequence with a whistle or something) make a lot of sense to me.
Reply With Quote
