Claiming "combat accuracy" is an excuse.

[SIG_Fiend]

I don't really think he was directing that at you Jon.

Rob Pincus' Combat Focus Shooting program defines (or at least one of the definitions I've seen him offer) "combat accuracy" as achieving any hit anywhere on the target... Hence one of the major reasons I do not advocate people spend their hard-earned money on training with CFS instructors, as that clearly does not set any standards for reputable performance or accountability.

IIRC, I think there is also a lot surrounding CFS that tends to lambaste target shooting as being "irrelevant".

 

[breakingcontact]

"Got to decide what is good enough for you. It is odd that those who advocate "combat accuracy as 8" at combat distances" also talk about the "real world" and force on force training a lot. They do this why decrying the fudd target shooter on the square range."

Can you cite a source for this? I talk about force on force allot from the citizen's perspective and leo's perspective (I instruct both in FOF). I've never called 8" acceptable and don't recall reading about anyone else who has either. I haven't called anyone a fudd target shooter nor have I read anyone else that advocates FOF calling target shooters fudds. I realize you probably weren't directing this at me. Have you attended FOF? If so, can you discount its relevance? If not same question?


The two most dangerous places in today's world:
1.) a gun free zone
2.) your comfort zone

Sure. This is the hive mind over on the Defensive Carry forum not directed at you Jon. I think you "get it".

Yes I have done force on force training but in a military context, not a civilian/LEO context.

I have no issue with it and do not criticize it. Many who advocate it as some truth serum that exposes what we really need in a fight and that is aggression more than skill and fundamentals are those with whom I take issue.

We need to discuss specific topics and right now way too many things and muddled.

*yes I did some of that muddling.

 

[Younggun]

Look a little further to see them muddled

 

[Charlie]

What's a "hive mind"?

Found it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_mind_(science_fiction)

 

[SIG_Fiend]

I love the radar chart, is there a web-page/free program with which to create them?

I used MS Excel 2013. I'm not sure if there's any free programs out there, but I'm sure there has to be.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that you (speaking generally) should be able to come up with a metric or definable way to measure performance with any aspects on that chart (or any others you might decide to add), the more I think you could establish ends of the spectrum (say beginner to expert), and actually record the data to come up with a radar chart that shows how well-rounded you are as a shooter. The shooting tasks are easy, with all of the established performance numbers, scoreable targets, etc. Might be a bit more tricky for trying to measure and put a range to things like manipulation, target discrimination, etc. For things like target discrimination, possibly drills could be developed to have some degree of consistency and ability to establish measurable metrics (whether it be measuring seconds, tenths, or even hundredths of a second response time). So I think Accuracy and Speed would be easy. Manipulation probably wouldn't be too terribly difficult (reloads, malfunction clearance, etc.). Target discrimination a bit more complicated, though probably not too big of a deal to figure something out. Who knows. Might be something fun to play with, just to see what it looks like.

 

[Jon Payne]

Yes, I've contributed to muddling as well. Accuracy is very important. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or just looking to stir the pot, but accuracy is but just one piece of the puzzle. As far as context goes others will probably disagree with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StevenC.]

OK then


IMHO, "combat accuracy" is simply having an acceptable "margin of error" when balancing speed and precision. It is a set level of precision that must be maintained regardless of distance which sets the "speed limit" of the shots. As you improve, the maximum speed can be increases while still maintaining "combat accuracy".

I don't think it matters too much if that level is set at 6" or 8". Both would put rounds in a chest cavity. The important thing is knowing your speed limit while keeping those rounds from missing the target. So, at 5 yards this could mean shooting as fast as the trigger can be pulled for many people. At 25 yards, the limit would be just below the speed at which rounds can no longer be kept in that 6" or 8" circle.

It's simply the amount of precision that can sacrificed in order to increase speed while still remaining effective.


That's my overly complicated definition anyways.

I appreciate that definition quite a bit. I would agree with the vast majority of it.

We only differ with the size of the group. I agree that actually getting a 6" group in a real use of force situation would likely suffice, I said so in the video- but being able to do it on the range is not the same as doing it in the fight. Which was why I opined in the video to strive for a much smaller grouping in practice.

As you pointed out what was missing was a statement to do as fast as you can speed can.

 

[StevenC.]

Well said, but you weren't grappling with someone fighting for your life bro!

No, but if he can grapple with me at 7 yards I suspect I'm screwed...

"3" at 7 yards eh at 1/2 second splits...ill try to shoot to that standard and see how I do. I "think" ill be OK.[/QUOTE]

Good luck! Want me to email you the "targets" I used?

 

[StevenC.]

The two most dangerous places in today's world:
1.) a gun free zone
2.) your comfort zone

I like this.

It is part n parcel to the video. Don't be comfortable with big groupings at short distances, strive to be better than that.

 

[breakingcontact]

Good luck! Want me to email you the "targets" I used?

Sure. Ill add it to my list of humbling drills.

 

[StevenC.]

...but accuracy is but just one piece of the puzzle. As far as context goes others will probably disagree with me...

So what if they do. This has been a polite discussion thus far and I aim to keep it that way.

Please share your thoughts.

 

[StevenC.]

Sure. Ill add it to my list of humbling drills.

Try the Frank Garcia dot drill. I've never met it. One National Champion stated it would take most GMs a bucket of bullets to get it done once.

Six 2" dots, draw and fire five shots in five seconds into a single dot from five yards. Repeat for each dot. Total of 30 rounds. It's an F'er.

 

[breakingcontact]

Ill have to edit out me quitting the thread now dammits! Ive been shooting the Dot Torture drill. Best ive done is 49/50 from 3 yards. Ill checkout the one you mentioned.

I bought Ben Stoegers dry fire practice book. I bet it only helps me if I use it though?

 

[breakingcontact]

Did a combat edit. Im back in.

 

[Andy]

Nope, not fast enough - fail

 

[breakingcontact]

Shot timer needs new batteries.

 

[Jon Payne]

So what if they do. This has been a polite discussion thus far and I aim to keep it that way.

Please share your thoughts.

I don't care if they do disagree, but I'm trying hard not to derail your thread too much. I'd get into the difference between the proactive and reactive gunfight. When the sights are needed and when they're not. Accuracy is a great thing to have, but marksmanship skills by themselves will not save the day. I for one to subscribe to any hit on the enemy is good for me and bad for them. I also subscribe to the thought all handgun rounds are under powered ( some more than others ) and what is hit ( read vitals and CNS ) is more important than what caliber. I submit one's gun handling skills and fighting ability are of greater importance to the CHL citizen than marksmanship. After all, in a gunfight it's more important not to get shot than it is to get rounds on target.

 

[breakingcontact]

Start a thread Jon. Sounds like an excellent topic.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I don't care if they do disagree, but I'm trying hard not to derail your thread too much. I'd get into the difference between the proactive and reactive gunfight. When the sights are needed and when they're not. Accuracy is a great thing to have, but marksmanship skills by themselves will not save the day. I for one to subscribe to any hit on the enemy is good for me and bad for them. I also subscribe to the thought all handgun rounds are under powered ( some more than others ) and what is hit ( read vitals and CNS ) is more important than what caliber. I submit one's gun handling skills and fighting ability are of greater importance to the CHL citizen than marksmanship. After all, in a gunfight it's more important not to get shot than it is to get rounds on target.

I would have a hard time arguing with that point of view.

Combat is a whole 'nother world and if you can get your rd into the 'pie plate' (which covers the head or the heart/lungs area) you come away with KIA or a WIA that most likely results in 'incapacitation'. Either one is an acceptable goal. The intensity and environment of combat are HUGE factors. From a raging sand storm to a monsoon in a jungle and everywhere in between; the enviro conditions play a major role...we are all playing the same game; cover and concealment. Factor in the intensity where the combat ratio is not in your favor and suddenly target acquisition is throwing your AR up on a rice paddy berm and pulling the trigger. I have been in a situation where we were completely surrounded by a superior force. I doubt we had any significant KIA/WIA, if any and had we not been completely in the open (rice paddies) and of course so were the bad guys. That resulted more in a stalemate as we did not suffer any KIA/WIA. We may have met a superior force but it was in numbers only, they lacked the CAS trump card.

I often hear "shot placement is king", no, not really, what is king (if there is one) is target acquisition. FNG's frequently want to stick their heads out and if they are lucky, really lucky they may eat some dirt from a miss by the OPFOR, if not the result is a KIA on the bad guy scoreboard. When it comes to TA 'time is of the essence'; you have to acquire and engage before he does. Its not a 'mano a mano' situation as everyone is looking for a target.

 

[breakingcontact]

Good insight Old Cowboy, thanks. That leads the discussion to situational awareness, seeing quickly and having a good draw and time to breaking your first shot.