TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Andy, I have another question/suggestion....

In your video, you "mozambiqued" the left target, and double tapped the right target, and you did so shooting right handed, but a couple of different ideas come up, and maybe they unnecessarily complicate what you're trying to accomplish, maybe not. Anyway, here's what occurs to me:

1) If the drill you shot in the video is the standard, does it reverse for a left handed shooter? I.E., does the left handed shooter triple tap the right target and double tap the left target?

2) The drill in the video assumes two bad guys roughly the same distance from the shooter. Would there be any value in staggering the bad guy distances? For instance (and I realize that the target placements were determined by Elm Fork's target hangers) would there be any value in putting one of the targets in a free-standing frame, maybe 4 or 5 feet closer to the shooter? The reason I suggest this is that your decision to triple the first target in a real life situation would be dictated by that target being the greater threat to the shooter—either because of proximity, or because that bad guy has a gun or something—and the second target being the lesser of the two immediate threats.

So, you could run the drill so that 20 rounds total are fired, in 4 parts:
left target is the bigger threat and closer to the shooter; triple the left target and double the right target;

right target is the bigger threat and closer to the shooter; triple the right target and double the left targe;

left target is the bigger threat but furthest from the shooter; triple the left target and double the right target;

right target is the bigger threat but furthest from the shooter; triple the right target and double the left target.
Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but that is what occurs to me.

There's another tactical consideration here. In a 2 BG confrontation at short range, both are likely to be nearly equal threats. Firing 3 rounds at one while not engaging the other at all until the 4th round leaves #2 enough free time to effectively counter and ruin the defender's day.

Shooting 1 round COM on the first, followed by a double tap on the second, and another 1 or 2 on the first followed by more on the second if the threat remains is regarded by many as the best solution for a very dangerous problem.

AndyC wrote:
paulhailes wrote:If people have to reload or switc guns so be it, you should have a set number of minimum shots in a set time
Agreed, and there will be.

paulhailes wrote:Is it unfair that some people will have a higher round count before reloading? Yes, this test shouldn't be about what's fair it should be about what's real.
On the street, absolutely - not necessarily in a trial, though. Remember that the point of the exercise isn't about what's fair or "Is a hi-cap pistol better than a low-cap in a gunfight?" - that's not what the trial is about. It's about testing various skills within the framework of a given self-defense situation to see if people can achieve a given, equal standard - regardless of their chosen type of firearm as much as is practically possible.

There are a number of reasons for the reload:

1. To force people to practice their reload, of course - something that the majority of folks never seem to do.

2. To allow commonly-carried, lower-capacity firearms to take part. I absolutely do not want people to avoid trying out with their actual carry-gun and bringing along some 17-shot monster because they think it'll give them an actual advantage in the trial. This is a skills-trial for as much as I can possibly make it, not an equipment race.

3. Creating a level playing field in terms of testing skills - a 15-shot Glock wouldn't have an advantage over, say, a 5-shot Kel-tec in that regard.

paulhailes wrote:how we get there is up to us
To a certain extent, for sure. I'm going to expect that certain mandatory skills be demonstrated, but some parts will also be freestyle so folks can be creative and solve that part of the problem their way.

paulhailes wrote:I think the most important thing is that we face a number of bgs that we could expect to encounter, that way we learn to work though it.
Best I can practically do is 2 BGs - it's a matter of range-safety as I've mentioned before (at a short distance, the more BGs we have, the more the shot-angles tend towards 180-degrees) - plus that should be plenty for anybody to build their skills and become not only more proficient but pretty darned confident, too.

One additional thing, in a nod towards realism:

Initially I had thought that a shooter should have a perfect score within the alloted time - for example, 6 shots only and all shots to be within the 9-ring and head - but what if someone misses a shot?

Should that be a reason for them to be considered immediately as having crashed & burned - or should they be allowed a make-up shot to cover that miss, risking the extra time that shot takes? I believe that they should - because 1. it forces a shooter to look for the result of their hits on the BG, just as in real life and 2. it allows for some creativity if the shooter has enough time remaining to take advantage of it.

I think the test should be based on performance, not required tactics.

I agree on allowing makeup shots. They cost time and ammo and the shooter should take away the consideration of where that (or those) round would have gone and what the consequences would have been in a real encounter. However, because they are a fact of life in the real world, they should be allowed.

I do not concur with forcing a reload on everyone. Yes, reloading is a skill everyone should practice but in real life, but reloading during a 2 - 3 second firefight almost never occurs in citizen defensive encounters, regardless of weapon type. Shooters of hi cap guns have enough rounds to finish the fight. Shooters of lo cap guns run out of ammo and lose. Almost no one has the opportunity to complete a speed reload.

If someone elects to handicap himself with a firearm with such low capacity that a reload would be necessary under these circumstances, he should be allowed to use that option and learn what he can from the experience. However, I am not aware of any incident where someone drew from concealment, executed 5 shots on 2 targets, reloaded, and shot again in real life within the 2 - 3 defensive encounter time frame.

I think requiring a reload would reduce realism and introduce an unnecessary game element. Let's keep it real.

AndyC wrote:
Excaliber wrote:I gotta give you credit for posting the first run even though it didn't fully meet your standards.

A less humble guy would have recorded 10 or so runs through the exercise and posted only the best one.
Um... if I'd had more ammo left, I might have done just that

Sriously - I don't want to make myself out to be some fake super-hero, and while it might seem quick, it's full of errors - draw and accuracy-wise - which are good lessons.

I do like the BUG idea. The trial's all about solving the problem of a social encounter, after all, and while there are definite skills I want folks to perform, it would be really nice to allow for some freestyle and creativity, too - and if it then helps someone select a better choice for them for street-carry, so much the better.

The old saying is that "The fastest reload is a NY reload" - but that originally referred to a primary revolver then to a backup revolver. This might not necessarily be true for a pistol primary and revolver BUG...

A second magazine would be faster for me than drawing a second gun, but one's mileage will vary depending on how the magazine is carried. Mine are very readily accessible with no intervening flaps or straps.

Due to the ammo capacity of most combat worthy pistols, in a single digit round count exercise, the reload can be done as a tactical one during a lull in the action or after it's over rather than as a speed reload after slide lockback in the middle of the fight.

AndyC wrote:Thanks. I don't normally do drills in public view - probably because I have an experimental mindset and fall over the edge quite a lot when trying things

That particular drill isn't anything fancy - just a Mozambique and a double-tap as done by every IPSC and IDPA shooter. I was trying out various drills in an effort to get an idea of some street-realistic times which will stretch folks and force them to get aggressive with the target in order to achieve the times (yet not be impossible). I also thought you guys might enjoy seeing me mess it up

I gotta give you credit for posting the first run even though it didn't fully meet your standards.

A less humble guy would have recorded 10 or so runs through the exercise and posted only the best one.

v-rog wrote:And that was with a .45! Very nice, Andy!

I don't know if it would throw a kink into the developing plan, but what about people being able to use their primary for the first 5 shots and their BUG for the last shot. For me, my primary is a M&P 9c and my BUG is a S&W .357 airweight. Otherwise, I'm easy.

AndyC wrote:Had some fun at the range - and was so excited to try out various options for the trial that I forgot to switch on my little video-camera until right at the end. It shows a horrible, very slow draw - total time from the beep was 2.15 seconds for a Mozambique (double-tap to the body and 1 to the head) on target 1 and a double-tap into target 2. Oh well - that's sure going to force me to do better - time from concealment to the first shot should be around 0.9 secs and a total time of around 1.8 secs.

[youtube][/youtube]

The beep came from my iPhone I'm tucking into my shirt pocket right at the start of the video - I set the free SureFire ShotTimer app to have a delayed beep of 5 seconds with a 2.2 sec par-time (you can just hear the second beep indicating the 2.2 sec time a fraction after the final shot).

I think you've come up with the solution for folks who want to run the drill with a J-frame - bring a BUG if that is part of one's routine carry package.

Reverting to the backup gun was known where I come from as the New York Reload because NYPD officers routinely used their backup revolvers when their K frames ran out of fodder before the fight was over.

It's not as fast as having more rounds in the magazine, but it's a good sight quicker than reloading the primary.

The impact of various carry gun combinations on performance time frames can help one make a good decision on how well one's daily carry package would meet the need in a sudden defensive encounter. That's good info to have ahead of time - and not good to discover during a fight if it should turn out that the equipment isn't up to the mission.

AndyC wrote:Had some fun at the range - and was so excited to try out various options for the trial that I forgot to switch on my little video-camera until right at the end. It shows a horrible, very slow draw - total time from the beep was 2.15 seconds for a Mozambique (double-tap to the body and 1 to the head) on target 1 and a double-tap into target 2. Oh well - that's sure going to force me to do better - time from concealment to the first shot should be around 0.9 secs and a total time of around 1.8 secs.

[youtube][/youtube]

The beep came from my iPhone I'm tucking into my shirt pocket right at the start of the video - I set the free SureFire ShotTimer app to have a delayed beep of 5 seconds with a 2.2 sec par-time (you can just hear the second beep indicating the 2.2 sec time a fraction after the final shot).

There's always some variation from run to run.

That looked pretty darn good to me, even if it was .35 seconds over your expectation. Without a precision timer, it wouldn't be noticed.

geekwagun wrote:

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but a standard for revolver and another for semi-autos seem like a good idea to me.

If we're aiming for practical application, this doesn't make sense to me.

Part of the value of the exercise derives from learning how well both you and your chosen equipment fare when you go up against the time, movement, and accuracy requirements of a real world defensive encounter.

Keep in mind that the dynamics of an incident won't change in your favor if you choose to handicap yourself with a small caliber or limited capacity handgun. Time frames won't lengthen, attacks won't slow down, bad guys won't be more easily disabled, misses won't get alibis, and there sure as shootin' won't be any timeouts for reloads.

I support designing the course along the lines of a generic defensive encounter against at least 2 assailants and preserving the full value of learning from it.

AndyC wrote:I would have preferred to use IPSC targets, but not all ranges have them.

As for accuracy, that depends which parts of the B-27 are going to count...

Ok, I'd better quit teasing.

The 9-ring of a B27 target is roughly equivalent in area to the A-zone on an IPSC target - just under 8" x 12", but unlike the rectangular IPSC dimensions of 6" x 11", the B-27 is rounded top and bottom which means smaller area. For all practical purposes, they seem to be pretty equivalent in terms of shootable area, so we'll be able to use that 9-ring as an A-zone equivalent quite happily, if my calculations are correct (feel free to double-check me, please).

Looking at it further, it might even give us flexibility - if the relevant areas on the various types of targets (B-27, IPSC and IDPA) are pretty equivalent, it might give us the *option* of using IPSC or IDPA targets instead if that's all that's available at a particular range. Even the area of the IDPA 5-zone is pretty close (only about 5 sq. inches bigger in area than an IPSC A-zone, which is a tiny difference).

Just a thought....

You could use a piece of standard copy paper (8 1/2 x 11) taped or stapled to any backing for simplicity and universal availability.

Draskuul wrote:I agree completely. I've heard some pretty disturbing stories of less legitimate CHL instructors acting like the equivalent of diploma mills, basically passing anyone regardless of their abilities.

I'm out of state right now for work, but plan on getting my TX CHL once I'm back home more permanently. I have my handgun while I'm out, though, and I'm working in regular practice, trying to improve my skills. As part of that I went and ordered a couple packs of the B-27 targets used for the CHL qualification. I'm not concerned about my scoring on it, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to practice on them some as well as normal targets.

I had the targets delivered to my company's office that I'm working out of and--wow, Texas turned into a real butt of jokes that day. The target is insanely huge, even for the 15 yard shots. I think most of us could do that blindfolded and off-handed. To think that some people who have their CHL struggled to make the necessary scores on this target is almost terrifying.

IPSC targets are much more useful for developing skill because the target areas are much more realistically sized and scored.

They also don't cause people to laugh as much.

B27's are designed to catch wild rounds to make poor shots count so folks who shouldn't qualify can.

Skiprr wrote:
Excaliber wrote:It's a lot harder to come up with a quick and dirty test that requires a well developed set of street relevant skills than might be apparent at first, but I'm sure you're up to the challenge.

I think the concept is terrific, and look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Put me on the interested list, too.

One of my soapboxes has been that if you never start your shooting practice closer than three yards, you're missing a whole 'nother universe of possible urban encounters that will--as all the statistics suggest--probably happen at less than nine feet. That so few CHLers practice close-contact shooting and retention makes those skills, to me, all the more important to highlight.

Sittin' here trying to run through my mind what could be done as a fairly comprehensive defensive pistol skills test with a single string of fire consisting of only a handful of rounds, that incorporates the draw-from-holster contact-distance shooting I think is vital, without a significant amount of footwork, and within the realm of reasonable range restrictions (no shooting the side berms, for example) has me at a loss and scratchin' my head. But that's only a few minutes of muddied thinkin', and Andy's obviously been planning this for a while. Only thing I can come up with would involve at least three targets (so you can move on a diagonal and still have a straight-downrange target to engage) and at least 15-20 feet of movement...or two targets, less movement, but two separate strings of fire. Even then it would take a lotta liberties with street realism.

For a timed test, maybe take a page out of the IDPA book and allow for two or three different skill-level certifications for folks who can accomplish the shooting, but not yet as quickly. Another possibility is what some instructors, like Farnam, do: Farnam has a course-ending standardized skills test that's pass/fail, but if you want to move on and be able to be qualified as an instructor, there's a much tighter minimum completion time.

Don't know about the "gunfighter" or "gunslinger" designations. Seems like that could carry a negative connotation. Maybe something as simple as Defensive Operator Grade I and Defensive Operator Grade II?

Just don't sell badges...

Even a single target at armslength or closer with only the "bowling pin" vital area of a silhouette counting for points and a very tight time frame (2 hits in 2 seconds, including draw from concealment) would be an extremely challenging exercise for most, as well as a very realistic test of relevant defensive skills.

Under the firearms qualification program I designed, every officer in my agency had to meet a standard of 3 rounds in 3 seconds at 6 feet from a secured holster as the first exercise, but they got partial credit for being outside the "bowling pin" zone. Most still put all their hits in the primary target area. The fastest guys could get 5 or sometimes 6 good hits in that time. (The entire course consisted of 25 rounds under various time constraints out to 25 yards. With the smaller round count, each shot carried more points and misses were heavily penalized).

There was great weeping and gnashing of teeth when I first put it into place, and the initial failure rate was high. The primary complaint was that it was "unfair" of me to require that sharply upgraded level of performance. I pointed out that there weren't any allowances or do overs for poor technique on the street, and the time frames of gunfights stayed the same regardless of poor performance. The fastest guy generally won. The chief stood behind me on the issue, and we worked hard to bring skill sets up to realistic levels.

Once our training program brought everyone up to speed, everyone passed with little trouble and it even became a point of pride for the officers that they met a far higher standard than any other agency in the county.

While that program was in place, they didn't lose any gunfights, and quite a few were avoided when bad guys changed plans in midstream when they saw the speed and no wasted motion efficiency of the officers' draw technique. The bad guys correctly figured the officers' shooting skills would likely be on par, and they showed uncharacteristically good judgment when they decided they didn't want to be on the downrange side of that display.

It's a lot harder to come up with a quick and dirty test that requires a well developed set of street relevant skills than might be apparent at first, but I'm sure you're up to the challenge.

I think the concept is terrific, and look forward to seeing what you come up with.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 11 matches

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...

Re: I'm disturbed...