Human Targets

[Tamara]

I know it is a sin to say here, but I hate the FAST drill.

I hate the FAST "Drill", too.

On the other hand, the "Fundamentals, Accuracy, and Speed Test" is a handy benchmark test of certain skills that I agree is arranged in a useful order.

Todd reiterated over and over to the point of redundancy that anybody sitting there burning reps on it over and over again was Doing It Wrong and that if one were chasing improvement on that particular test, the way to do so was to practice the discrete skills that it measures.

[JohnO]

I hate the Fast "Drill", too.

On the other hand, the "Fundamentals, Accuracy, and Speed Test" is a handy benchmark test of certain skills that I agree is arranged in a useful order.

Todd reiterated over and over to the point of redundancy that anybody sitting there burning reps on it over and over again was Doing It Wrong and that if one were chasing improvement on that particular test, the way to do so was to practice the discrete skills that it measures.

I have talked with many folks who have trouble distinguishing the Test aspect. Initial reaction is, "wrong order", "why would I engage the head first?". They can't see the Test through the forest of supposed realistic drills.

[Dr_Thanatos]

Here is the problem I am having.

Service pistol bullet strikes lower or upper 3x5 = fight over.

Brenneke slug or .308 expanding bullet strikes outside 3x5, and no good for physiological stop.

Doesn't that leave us with service pistol bullet = Brenneke slug and .308 expanding bullet as physiological fight stopper?

To clarify my statements, the areas I am talking about are what would cause near instant incapacitation, not merely be lethal. The proverbial hunter's "*Bang* Flop" if you will. Not a common occurrence, but not unheard of. More commonly in hunting, there is a bit of movement, where the animal runs a (hopefully) short distance with a lethal hit. In a human, that could translate to continued attacks, or running away.

With respect to a slug or .308, change the 3x5 to 4x6 or 5x7. More margin of error, but not as much as you would like.

Lethality of a gunshot wound in a human will be determined by placement/location injured combined with proximity to high quality medical care and rapidity of transport. What might be a survivable GSW in a big city with a great ambulance service and level 1 trauma center would be lethal in BFE with a community hospital and volunteer rescue squad. Also we are talking about a single GSW causing a instantly lethal injury, again, the margin of error is very small.

One of the places I used to work had a very active gang scene, and OIS's were common. At least for a while, the hit rate for the LEO was stellar, with multiple one shot to the eyebox in a row. After a few of these, the rate of OIS's dropped precipitously, and at least if you believe the rumors, the various "criminal masterminds" decided that they didn't want to get shot, because they were going to take one to the head and that would be it. I left there before that particular thought had left the hearts and minds of the bad guys, so I don't know how it resolved. Made my life easier, so I was good with it.

It is in general rare for me to see a single GSW that is instantly lethal/incapacitating that is not neurologic. Even heart shots leave a short period of time for action. Mostly I see multiple shots, frequently lung and abdomen, followed by a ride to the ED and death before/during/immediately after surgery as a result of prolonged blood loss.

I think BBI had it right upthread, get a few shots fast into the high thoracic, and then shoot for the head if they aren't done.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I hate the FAST "Drill", too.

On the other hand, the "Fundamentals, Accuracy, and Speed Test" is a handy benchmark test of certain skills that I agree is arranged in a useful order.

Todd reiterated over and over to the point of redundancy that anybody sitting there burning reps on it over and over again was Doing It Wrong and that if one were chasing improvement on that particular test, the way to do so was to practice the discrete skills that it measures.

Yeah, I thought he was always really clear about the fact that it is not a drill, and you shouldn't run it over and over.

It's not a reverse Mozambique variant. It's a test. Complaining about the order is like complaining about taking a driving test where the first task is parallel parking, because in real life you'd park at the end of a trip.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

[Mr_White]

First, I can find no hard reason for the 50% number. The analysis for performance degradation is way more complex and ranges from no loss of skill to 100% skill loss.

Second, I don't suggest we start there. I think that the case for a gradual ramping down can be made. First stage of competency is to be able to hit the 8" circle. Next stage is to do it under 1.7 or so. Next, I'd shrink the target to the a 6" circle or the black of the bullseye. Work on the smaller zone while pushing the time down to 1.5 or so.

Another reasonable progression might be to use a 4x6" within a 5.5 x 8.5". Work the time down then worry about staying in the 4x6" a certain percent of the time, a percent that can be gradually decreased.

I don't personally take a strong position on likely percentage of skills loss, because I don't know - I tend to agree with your answer that it varies, and there are some things you can do to keep it down. Jim Cirillo making shots in the field that he could not duplicate on the range also sticks in my mind, but that's just one instance. However, and I don't have the time to go find a bunch of quotes to cite right now, I feel sure that I have frequently seen some or another phrasing of the 50% thing cited by real world dudes as a reason for a B8 bull or some other more anatomically correct target zone in lieu of the larger and more common 8" circle, lower A zone, etc. My point, not directed at you, is that maybe even anatomically correct target zones inherently contain a bit of compromise between strict anatomy and the recognition of the general value of an immediate and vigorous counterattack, even if not 100% anatomically perfect. The difference between that and an 8" is maybe more a matter of degree.

[Tamara]

I have talked with many folks who have trouble distinguishing the Test aspect. Initial reaction is, "wrong order", "why would I engage the head first?". They can't see the Test through the forest of supposed realistic drills.

...which gets even further into the weeds of people confusing "drills" and "scenarios".

[BehindBlueI's]

Jim Cirillo making shots in the field that he could not duplicate on the range also sticks in my mind, but that's just one instance.

I can believe that. If you're a true expert who's already got your fundamentals down to the subconscious level and have appropriate stress inoculation for the circumstances, sometimes just getting out of your own way and letting your subconscious run the task makes real good results. in short, things we're really really good at, we can improve under stress to a point. The same person at the same stress level but at a task that's not as familiar will not have the same positive response, probably the opposite. The hypothetical guy who can run an M-16 in his sleep and be smooth as silk under fire may have the shakes and forget simple steps applying a tourniquet to a buddy under the exact same pressures if that's an unfamiliar and unpracticed task. Stress inoculation that's irrelevant also isn't much help. The sympathetic nervous system responds the same, but the mind doesn't. Audie Murphy and his statements about the fear he felt at public speaking vs battle come to mind, although I suspect most of us are not as extreme on either end. Finally, the time spent worrying about it up front. A sudden gun fight, there's no time for what-ifs and counterfactuals. A trip to Internal Affairs and you're not sure what they want to talk to you about, though? Lots of time to spin yourself up.

[Robinson]

Do you have much experience with 30-30 150 gr loads?

As a deer hunting and general use gun, Ive mostly used 170 gr loads, but the bum shoulder and potential as a defensive arm have me looking more at 150 gr loads. They are generally considered to be faster expanding than the 170s.

I don't know if this is the best approach or not, but I have my 24" Marlin set up for 170gr loads and my 18" Marlin set up for the 125gr Federal JHP load. My thinking is that the 24" gun is a general purpose/hunting rifle whereas the 18" gun is more for defensive and varmint use. Those two options cover some ground. I set the rifles up that way back when I lived in rural Ohio even though rifles were always verboten for deer hunting.

[Dagga Boy]

I hate the FAST "Drill", too.

On the other hand, the "Fundamentals, Accuracy, and Speed Test" is a handy benchmark test of certain skills that I agree is arranged in a useful order.

Todd reiterated over and over to the point of redundancy that anybody sitting there burning reps on it over and over again was Doing It Wrong and that if one were chasing improvement on that particular test, the way to do so was to practice the discrete skills that it measures.

Which is why I have shot it exactly once. Because it was a "test". And if we think that there are not a crap load of folks doing it over and over to improve their "number", then we need to get out more. That was unfortunately what happened when I drifted out into the world for a short time and was sitting in total awe of the world where literally thousands of people are shooting drills and comparing numbers via social media. I ran screaming back to revolver forum and have been in hiding ever since. It is a phenomenon that I am just not ready for. Because of many folks here having a relationship with Todd (myself included), "we" get it....most don't.

I don't personally take a strong position on likely percentage of skills loss, because I don't know - I tend to agree with your answer that it varies, and there are some things you can do to keep it down. Jim Cirillo making shots in the field that he could not duplicate on the range also sticks in my mind, but that's just one instance. However, and I don't have the time to go find a bunch of quotes to cite right now, I feel sure that I have frequently seen some or another phrasing of the 50% thing cited by real world dudes as a reason for a B8 bull or some other more anatomically correct target zone in lieu of the larger and more common 8" circle, lower A zone, etc. My point, not directed at you, is that maybe even anatomically correct target zones inherently contain a bit of compromise between strict anatomy and the recognition of the general value of an immediate and vigorous counterattack, even if not 100% anatomically perfect. The difference between that and an 8" is maybe more a matter of degree.

I can believe that. If you're a true expert who's already got your fundamentals down to the subconscious level and have appropriate stress inoculation for the circumstances, sometimes just getting out of your own way and letting your subconscious run the task makes real good results. in short, things we're really really good at, we can improve under stress to a point. The same person at the same stress level but at a task that's not as familiar will not have the same positive response, probably the opposite. The hypothetical guy who can run an M-16 in his sleep and be smooth as silk under fire may have the shakes and forget simple steps applying a tourniquet to a buddy under the exact same pressures if that's an unfamiliar and unpracticed task. Stress inoculation that's irrelevant also isn't much help. The sympathetic nervous system responds the same, but the mind doesn't. Audie Murphy and his statements about the fear he felt at public speaking vs battle come to mind, although I suspect most of us are not as extreme on either end. Finally, the time spent worrying about it up front. A sudden gun fight, there's no time for what-ifs and counterfactuals. A trip to Internal Affairs and you're not sure what they want to talk to you about, though? Lots of time to spin yourself up.

Here is a factor I often talk about and most will never get. We never factor what our brains do with "time" during crisis. It is a factor that relates to many people doing things in shootings they cannot replicate. I saw this often, we have a member of this forum who performed literally "off the charts" in a OIS making multiple hits at an impressive distance in a time not likely replicable. I have had this experience myself, and have multiple cases of amazing shots that the shooters didn't think we're a big deal because things were so slow......to them. It is one of the reasons that our training program is built around a ton of reps to over learn a response in a time when it can be done at 100% so the brain knows how to do it at a sub conscious level and it is easily applied in a situation where your brain is also warping time in your favor. Folks can disagree, call b.s., or start chanting "burn the witch", but I have enough of these first hand to just nod and go "chant away". We have choices in how to train. There will be consequences to those choices if we ever need it. Some good, some bad. We hope that our choices will yield positive results.

[GJM]

In fairness to Todd, as regards the tactical appropriateness of the FAST, the primary objective of the FAST was marketing. When I think of Todd, I think of the FAST, then appendix holsters, then the color orange. Todd was pretty open as to modeling the FAST on Rogers ratings, and it was brilliantly successful.