The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 19, 2018, 08:19 AM   #1
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 1,089
Realistic targets

I have read a few things recently that are advocating for more people to train with so-called realistic targets. The ones that I have seen are usually photographs of people in somewhat cheesy poses pointing guns at you. They usually have some sort of faint outlines indicating the various target areas inside the Torso. Does anyone think that the type of Target used really makes much of a difference versus the ability to hit a precise area when you need to? If I can hit a 6 inch paper plate, does it matter whether it's actually a paper plate versus a 6 inch circle on a picture of an angry looking model?

Also, I was once given the advice that I should train with half size torso targets rather than full. The sentiment there was I can expect to be half as accurate under stress, so if I can reliably hit a half size torso, then under stress I can probably hit a full size. Makes sense to me.

Thoughts on target selection?
OhioGuy is offline  
Old May 19, 2018, 09:10 AM   #2
Skippy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2010
Posts: 124
David Grossman speaks to this in his book, "On Killing." He references S.L.A. Marshall's study (Killology) on the firing rates of soldiers in World War II.

"He found that the ratio of rounds fired vs. hits was low; he also noted that the majority of soldiers were not aiming to hit their targets. This was a problem for the US military and its allies during World War II. New training implements were developed and hit rates improved. The changes were small, but effective. First, instead of shooting at bull's-eyetype targets, the United States Army switched to silhouette targets that mimic an average human."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology?wprov=sfla1


--------------
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Skippy is offline  
Old May 19, 2018, 09:49 AM   #3
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
Interesting post by Skippy. I would not have thought that the use of silhouette targets would have made that much difference, but I haven't read the book. A bit of knowledge of anatomy would help a lot of shooters, I would imagine.

Personally, I use half size silhouette targets with targets on the head and the chest. That's mostly because they are the cheapest ones available at the range I use most often. (Another does not allow silhouettes.) You basically have two targets in one, and they sell for 50 cents a piece. If you hang them upside down, you have good practice for being attacked by gymnasts. ;-)
TailGator is offline  
Old May 19, 2018, 11:33 AM   #4
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
The issue is that a lot of clubs and public/private ranges won't allow 'em. There are some that don't allow shooting game targets either. So it might be moot.
Half size torso targets are less expensive. A target is a target otherwise.
"...firing rates of soldiers in World War II..." All of that pre-dates W.W. II literally by centuries. There are reports of muskets being found after battles with the barrels loaded multiple times but not fired. Some times 5 or more. The troopie when through the motions of loading on command but did not fire.
The ratio of rounds fired vs. hits was low because in battle you're shooting a lot faster than you ever would on a range. And the number of troopies who actually fired at all was low. Training a guy to hate somebody he doesn't know and hasn't done him any harm was the issue. Especially after a life time of "Thou shalt not kill"(it's actually 'not murder' too) being hammered into a guy.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old May 19, 2018, 11:59 AM   #5
Skippy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2010
Posts: 124
I don't recall who does this, but one nationally recognized tactical trainer/instructor included in his training fees the cost of a hog. At some point in the training he takes his tactical ninja warriors to a hog farm and has them shoot their hog point blank in the head.

He said it clearly separates those who talk the talk from those who can take a life.

FWIW, after they kill their pigs they'll shoot the carcasses from a variety of distances, angles, calibers, etc and butcher to show what the damages are like compared to a block of jello.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

--------------
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Last edited by Skippy; May 19, 2018 at 01:50 PM.
Skippy is offline  
Old May 20, 2018, 06:58 AM   #6
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 1,089
Wow. Dunno about the hog thing. It's kind of an unfair comparison. A better one would be taking them out to the woods to be charged by a wild boar. Separating those who can take innocent/unthreatening life from those who can't isn't the point. But maybe I'd do it if I got to take home the bacon afterwards

Haven't been to any ranges that forbid silhouette targets.
OhioGuy is offline  
Old May 20, 2018, 02:32 PM   #7
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
2D targets are not that realistic. If you get into higher levels of training, you will find 3D torso targets that are reactive. Meaning, you have to hit them in critical areas to have them drop.

For example, see
http://blog.krtraining.com/2018-rang...ce-aar-part-5/

http://www.tacticalanatomy.com/

Flat 2D targets, even with pictures, are not the best realistic one for training. Stress on the square range is minimal.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 22, 2018, 04:15 PM   #8
CDR_Glock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 30, 2010
Posts: 704


I use all sorts of targets. The rubber dummy is quite a good teaching model, as you see where an off centered head shot would really go.

Mental imagery is helpful plus it allows someone to assess the critical anatomy to hit.

Unfortunately, it also serves to subconsciously desensitize someone to shooting a human if the need ever arises.

A shot to the torso would get someone’s attention and make them think twice, assuming they’re not on drugs. A head shot has a small vital zone and is harder due to movement.

A more realistic assessment is to see how fast you draw from Concealment and hit the target accurately.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
CDR_Glock is offline  
Old May 22, 2018, 05:02 PM   #9
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
Quote:
I use all sorts of targets. The rubber dummy is quite a good teaching model, as you see where an off centered head shot would really go.

Mental imagery is helpful plus it allows someone to assess the critical anatomy to hit.

Unfortunately, it also serves to subconsciously desensitize someone to shooting a human if the need ever arises.

A shot to the torso would get someone’s attention and make them think twice, assuming they’re not on drugs. A head shot has a small vital zone and is harder due to movement.

A more realistic assessment is to see how fast you draw from Concealment and hit the target accurately.
You bring up a number of points I dont think many even consider.

You are usually told to shoot COM, at a square on, nondescript/PC type target and all will be good. If youre going by and using the scoring rings on many silhouette targets, youre not even shooting where you really should be, even with a head-on shot.

What COM is, can vary greatly, depending on how the target is positioned in relation to you, in the moment.

You really need to have at least a basic understanding of anatomy, and where the real targets are in the body, and where you need to aim/shoot, to hit them. Dont just mindlessly shoot what you are told is COM. Same goes for head shots.

Not saying a head shot isnt a good thing, but like COM, there is a specific target youre trying to hit, and that changes your POA, again, depending on your position in relation to the target. You dont just want to shoot for what youre usually told/shown what the square on target is.

Even 2D targets offer good training, "if" you understand what and why youre trying to shoot, and where to aim to hit those targets. A 2d target may be flat, but depending on the positioning of the person in the picture, you still have to think and choose the proper aiming point for the "track of the bullet" to go to hit the right target.

Someone may look at the target after youre done, and try and tell you "you missed", when in fact, you actually shot in the right place, to make the proper shot.


The other advantage, although I'm sure some will balk and say its not proper, is that it does help you to get your head in the game, and teach/desensitize you to shooting "people". Lets face it, if youre carrying a gun, what are you practicing for, if not that?

The last part of all this is, putting all of the above together, and drawing and moving, moving and drawing and quickly shooting the target as you go, while youre moving and making good hits in the appropriate spots.
AK103K is offline  
Old May 22, 2018, 09:54 PM   #10
Archie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2000
Location: Hastings, Nebrasksa - the Hear
Posts: 2,209
I presume this discussion is about self-defense shooting, not game animals, Olympic targets or such.

For beginning - and it might be handy for experienced - shooters, use a big target. For self-defense purposes, I like the squared off IPSC or USPSA or whatever it's called these days. When one can keep all shots on the whole target, then move to have all shots on the center zone or head or such.

Keep in mind when shooting in self defense, one's adversary is not always square on and facing. The shooter must be able to think in three dimensions and shoot so the projectile interferes with the proper location on the adversary.

Part of my solution was to obtain (library) a book on human anatomy and study the internal organs quite carefully. Also, I practiced 'visualizing' the internal positions from different orientations.

The thread is about 'realistic' targets. Not a bad idea, but can be pretty spendy for some examples. A cheap version - which takes a bit of application - is a cardboard box of roughly human torso size and shape - squared off is fine - with a balloon suspended inside.

Learn to ignore the box and hit the balloon. Move the target to different perspectives, facing you, three quarters both sides, ninety degrees both sides.

Not all ranges will accommodate this sort of thing of course. Unless one has space of one's own, I don't have any bright ideas.
__________________
There ain't no free lunch, except Jesus.
Archie

Check out updated journal at http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/
Archie is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.05866 seconds with 10 queries