COMBAT ACCURACY

[PhoenixTacticalSolutions]

"Combat accuracy" is a concept that is detrimental to a shooter's development, especially beginners. Many shooters espouse this type of "accuracy" and train using it as the marker. Throwing rounds as fast as you can without command of the weapon is useless. Run the gun...don't let the gun run you.

While training to become proficient and "one" with the gun, mastery of fundamentals is quintessential. Speed will come with proper training...it's inevitable...be patient.

Strive to get to a place in your training to be able to have tight groups at speed. Speed and accuracy are NOT mutually exclusive and can certainly coexist. Aspire to excellence. The ability to hit shots from 15-25 yards at speed is also crucial and will translate to faster and more accurate hits at close distances.

Shooting fast at three yards and hitting thoracic is not an art. When training, your groups should be as tight as possible (and continue getting tighter as time goes by coupled with speed), since they will open up when you're hit with an adrenaline dump. If you are merely in thoracic in training, you will probably miss the intended target completely when it counts most.

Combat accuracy has it's place...in combat/defensive shootings...since adrenaline will probably dictate as such.

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by The Virus

Combat accurate just means, I can't shoot good.
Unless of course you are actually IN combat.
Combat accurate on the square range is utter Horse Sh*t
training for Minute Of Badguy is an excuse for poor technique.

Often times it's exactly as you say. Just as often it's a description of something else. People tend to argue in favor of their own strengths, and to mitigate the effects of their own weaknesses.

To some, "Combat Accurate" means "stop trying to shoot cloverleafs at 10 yards" in a self defense oriented class. To others, it's an excuse for having rounds all over the friggin' (IPSC target) A & C box at 3 yards. Someone very fast makes it an excuse his for his inaccuracy, someone very precise an excuse for his lack of speed.

I'm a big fan of shooting for that "fist sized" group ... maybe a little larger ... as fast as I can at whatever distance I am shooting.

As both you and Manni indicate "Combat Accurate" is what happens to those groups in an actual combat or defense incident. They open up because all hell is breaking loose. No competition, training or FoF exercise is really the same thing, or exhibits the same amount of stress.

"Combat Accurate" really should mean shooting well enough with some stress, that it falls to the level of no worse than good enough for the real thing, and not ever accepting "good enough" in training.

[bballwizard05]

You are right. I digress right here and now that I am guilty of claiming "combat accuracy". I'll say "I know I can hit a dinner plate 7 out of 8 times at 200 yards with my M1" and feel confident. But if that dinner plate were shooting back......... I'd be throwing hot lead and praying.

I've never been a keyboard commando, but may occasionally over hype my "skills" The only rife I own that I am "one" with is my 10/22, it is an extension of me. But my M1 Garand, and Ruger M77 I am just casually accurate, but I would like to get much, much better.

I've got a lot of work to do, thanks for unintentionally calling me out a little bit.

[ramzar]

Originally Posted by PhoenixTacticalSolutions

"Combat accuracy" is a concept that is detrimental to a shooter's development, especially beginners. Many shooters espouse this type of "accuracy" and train using it as the marker. Throwing rounds as fast as you can without command of the weapon is useless. Run the gun...don't let the gun run you.

While training to become proficient and "one" with the gun, mastery of fundamentals is quintessential. Speed will come with proper training...it's inevitable...be patient.

Strive to get to a place in your training to be able to have tight groups at speed. Speed and accuracy are NOT mutually exclusive and can certainly coexist. Aspire to excellence. The ability to hit shots from 15-25 yards at speed is also crucial and will translate to faster and more accurate hits at close distances.

Shooting fast at three yards and hitting thoracic is not an art. When training, your groups should be as tight as possible (and continue getting tighter as time goes by coupled with speed), since they will open up when you're hit with an adrenaline dump. If you are merely in thoracic in training, you will probably miss the intended target completely when it counts most.

Combat accuracy has it's place...in combat/defensive shootings...since adrenaline will probably dictate as such.

I am specially not in favor of "Combat Accurate" hits for beginning shooters. This goes doubly when done at 3 yards. It's a false sense of self-confidence. "Combat Accurate" hits in regular training only opens you up to huge misses when the threat is not 3 yards and in. You can actually miss pretty bad even at 2-4 yards as evidenced by the two NYPD officers on Friday outside of Empire State Building.

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by The Virus

Correct, but training to the standard of "combat accurate" translates to: when the SHTF your groups will open up to Minute Of Elephant or MOE.

Depends on how you look at the term. "Combat Accurate" has no real set definition. You said "correct, but ..." in response to my earlier post, but perhaps missed the point. Maybe I did not communicate it clearly enough.

If "Combat Accurate" means "just good enough" in training ... yep, that's going to mean "MOE" in an actual fight.

If it means much better than needed in training so that you do no worse than is required in an actual fight ... that's a much more responsible approach.

It still should never be used or accepted as an excuse for poor performance.

[TATB]

To me "Combat accurate" means accurate enough to win the fight. I think the first shot should be made as fast as possible (~1s?) to hit the target in the upper torso, make it jerk the trigger and get stunned for a moment. The following shots (~0.3s?) should be more accurate to make the target incapable of shooting back.

[Bob Hostetter]

Combat accuracy in my experience is a term used to describe someone or something that can't shoot very well. Something is either accurate or it's not, someone can either perform at an acceptable level or they can't. Where or what they are shooting at is a separate issue.

[Brian1979]

Originally Posted by The Virus

You sir are correct.
Any outfit that trains to the level of combat efffective should be publicaly humiliated.
Every jacktard these days is suddenly a "tactical" firearms "instructor"
of which a large percentage have ZERO "tactical" experience.

I had a "tactical" Latte this morning then I made a "tactical" movement in the bathroom.

My point is the whole "tactical" thing sometimes over shadows how to actually shoot.

LOL, I love it.

[Kempfer]

I've heard "That is still combat effective" used as a pat on the back for a C zone hit. I guess that might help for some shooters so they won't be discouraged but personally I'd rather be given correction to get that A zone hit rather than a pat on the back. So I would tend to agree the term "combat effective/combat accuracy" seems to be more of an excuse to not teach or not learn.

[ZombieTactics]

[Rob Pincus]

Seems like it depends on the definition.. if it is the one I coined about a decade ago "Any shot that significantly affects the threat's ability to present a threat.", then those of you who stated that only applies to the fight are correct. But, you have to understand how to apply the concept to training.

If you are going to assume that a hit in a 6" circle (for example, pick whatever you want) is going to represent a shot that will meet the above definition then all CA means during that training session is that ANY shot in the 6" circle is equal and good.... any shot outside is a miss.
Target shooters will obsess over hitting the center of the 6" circle OR suggest that at 10' they should hit a 3" circle, at 30' a 6" circle and at 45' a 10" circle.... Those are fallacies and misconceptions are created by the illusion that you should always maximize deviation control instead of Maximizing Speed at the agreed upon MINIMAL AMOUNT OF DEVIATION CONTROL. In a real fight, the target dictates the need for precision, not your ability on a range or in a choreographed drill. because of that, you should define a "combat accurate area" for any drill or string of fire and judge your accuracy as "yes or no", not "more or less".

It's a big paradigm shift once you stop chasing what you can possibly do with a gun on a range in regard to precision and start chasing speed at whatever precision level you deem appropriate. Good Luck!

-RJP

[PhoenixTacticalSolutions]

Originally Posted by Rob Pincus

Seems like it depends on the definition.. if it is the one I coined about a decade ago "Any shot that significantly affects the threat's ability to present a threat.", then those of you who stated that only applies to the fight are correct. But, you have to understand how to apply the concept to training.

If you are going to assume that a hit in a 6" circle (for example, pick whatever you want) is going to represent a shot that will meet the above definition then all CA means during that training session is that ANY shot in the 6" circle is equal and good.... any shot outside is a miss.
Target shooters will obsess over hitting the center of the 6" circle OR suggest that at 10' they should hit a 3" circle, at 30' a 6" circle and at 45' a 10" circle.... Those are fallacies and misconceptions are created by the illusion that you should always maximize deviation control instead of Maximizing Speed at the agreed upon MINIMAL AMOUNT OF DEVIATION CONTROL. In a real fight, the target dictates the need for precision, not your ability on a range or in a choreographed drill. because of that, you should define a "combat accurate area" for any drill or string of fire and judge your accuracy as "yes or no", not "more or less".

It's a big paradigm shift once you stop chasing what you can possibly do with a gun on a range in regard to precision and start chasing speed at whatever precision level you deem appropriate. Good Luck!

-RJP

Nice to meet you!

The point is that accuracy and speed are not mutually exclusive. With proper training you can have fist sized groups at speed...the same speed at which the person registering looser thoracic hits. Groups open up under adrenaline dump. With that knowledge it is critical to be able to have tight groups during training.

"In a real fight, the target dictates the need for precision, not your ability on a range or in a choreographed drill." RJP

It is your training on the range that dictates how well you'll do during "combat". If your best during training is all over the place in thoracic and someone else's best is a tight group at speed, the other person has a huge advantage assuming both have the same mindset, situational awareness and response to the threat time.

With proper time spent on fundamentals (especially with beginners), speed and accuracy are attainable. Urging novice shooters to go fast and hit thoracic from 3 yards is a huge disservice to those shooters. BTW, I am not suggesting that any outfit does that and my post was to caution those who train as such.

Without ingrained fundamentals you can not have accuracy...speed will come whether you want it or not.

[Rob Pincus]

The point is that accuracy and speed are not mutually exclusive. With proper training you can have fist sized groups at speed...the same speed at which the person registering looser thoracic hits. Groups open up under adrenaline dump. With that knowledge it is critical to be able to have tight groups during training.

You're still missing the point. If you want a 10" group, why try to get a fist sized group? It's not about how small your group can be in defensive shooting, it's about how quickly you can fire a smallenough group.

Google "Balance of Speed & Precision"... not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are interdependent.

With more research & effort, you guys will get this!

-RJP

[ZombieTactics]

A lot of problems are misunderstood owing to the "tyranny of measurement"

You can accurately measure whether a glass of water is half-empty or half-full, and still say nothing at all about whether you have enough water. The former only gives you data in relationship to the tools being used for measurement. The latter places the information qualitatively in meaningful context.

Confusing those two ways of looking at any problem is almost a guarantee that you have no idea what the data means, and probably aren't measuring the right thing, in the right way, in the first place.

Having said this, I think we're about 2 posts away from the usual parties starting in with chest-puffery and name-calling, lol.

[PhoenixTacticalSolutions]

Originally Posted by Rob Pincus

You're still missing the point. If you want a 10" group, why try to get a fist sized group? It's not about how small your group can be in defensive shooting, it's about how quickly you can fire a smallenough group.

Google "Balance of Speed & Precision"... not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are interdependent.

With more research & effort, you guys will get this!

-RJP

It appears as though you are missing the point! If your best in training is hitting 10" groups, in "combat" your groups will open up. If in training, John can post fist size groups in the same time Jack registers 10" groups...well...

I do not create dogma to fit my needs and shooting abilities. Seems basic to me.

[ramzar]

Originally Posted by Rob Pincus

With more research & effort, you guys will get this!

-RJP

That's quite a haughty statement.

[R1J1D]

there is some good info here on training and accuracy...

How I train for combat - set your phone alarm to the sound of repeated gunfire as soon as you wake up to gunfire your first response should be to get out of bed find your weapon and acquire a target if you can do that half awake then +1 !!

lol thats about the only way I can get close to a heart racing surprise combat scenario, Although I am joking it couldnt hurt to see what your groups are seconds after waking up in a rush.

[1000stars]

Your target is moving and throwing lead at the same time you are moving throwing lead the other direction.

Lighting, distance, in or outdoors, bystanders, number of bad guys, number of ammo you are carrying, weather determines the gun you are carrying, your injuries etc... Can determine the amount of accuracy needed to get the job done.

Example, perp is 5 feet in front of you about to point gun in your direction and shoot you, will you use your sights or point and shoot center mass?

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by The Virus

It's more stress inducing than you might think,most certainly more stress inducing than pretending to be surprised. The time and shot accountability can't be dismissed.
FoF training is still pretend, there is NO threat so it's still just more advanced playing army that kids do (or used to do).
I've done quite a few FoF CQB games and it ends up being lots of people shooting alot.

If the competition thing gets thrown out there so often,perhaps there's something to it.....

We cross-posted. I decided to delete my comments, as they really did seem like a thread-jack. Perhaps a good discussion for another thread?

[GeoffLinder]

Originally Posted by 1000stars

Example, perp is 5 feet in front of you about to point gun in your direction and shoot you, will you use your sights or point and shoot center mass?

It has been proven over and over again that using the sights is just as fast as point shooting AND a whole lot more likely to provide solid hits instead of misses!

[ramzar]

Originally Posted by 1000stars

Example, perp is 5 feet in front of you about to point gun in your direction and shoot you, will you use your sights or point and shoot center mass?

Example, last Friday in NYC. NYPD officers fire 17 rounds at similar distances (perp's gun jammed) and miss 9 times which hit pedestrians. Fast "combat effective" rounds come with lawsuits.

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by GeoffLinder

It has been proven over and over again that using the sights is just as fast as point shooting AND a whole lot more likely to provide solid hits instead of misses!

That's probably true, but many will misunderstand your comment to mean "getting a perfect sight alignment/picture". Obviously, that's not really a good idea at 5 feet. It might also (depending upon the exact situation and the skill of the defender) be better to shoot from a retention position, for reasons having nothing to do with speed.

[SG29736]

"I'm a bit bothered by the notion that a shot-timer and onlookers is supposed to be some insane "crucible-like" pressure-cooker of stress."

I don't think that anyone is saying that shooting in a competition in front of other shooters, with your performance being timed and scored, is the same stress level as an actual shootout or combat. But, when that timer goes off, many experienced shooters are surprised at just how nervous and stressful they become, considering it's only a competition setting. They anticipate that since it's only a competition, they won't feel any pressure or stress, and are usually surprised. A very small percentage of us will ever actually feel the stress of someone shooting back at us. Even in force on force training, you know that you aren't actually facing a lethal situation and that can alter what you might do in a real life and death situation. Mark

After I posted this I noticed that several of us must have been typing at the same time.

[The Virus]

^^^what he said^^^

[ZombieTactics]

For Pete's sake, people ... I deleted the comment. It's s good topic for another thread though.

[GeoffLinder]

Originally Posted by ZombieTactics

That's probably true, but many will misunderstand your comment to mean "getting a perfect sight alignment/picture". Obviously, that's not really a good idea at 5 feet. It might also (depending upon the exact situation and the skill of the defender) be better to shoot from a retention position, for reasons having nothing to do with speed.

If you train properly, the sight picture you get/use on a specific target will be determined by the distance to target and the available area on the target. This is exactly what is taught in advanced competition and self defense training, getting and using the sight picture that is required by the target in question.

At 25 yards you will need to spend a little time dressing the sight picture up, at 5-10 feet all you need is some underwear and maybe some socks

Edited to add: Also, you don't need to fully extend the pistol to use the sights. One of the things I teach people to do when I help them develop good draw and shoot fundamentals as a range officer at our club is to get the gun up and right in front of your face BEFORE pushing it out to extension. This allows you to use the sights with the gun right in your face if need be instead of waiting for it to be at full extension.

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by ramzar

Example, last Friday in NYC. NYPD officers fire 17 rounds at similar distances (perp's gun jammed) and miss 9 times which hit pedestrians. Fast "combat effective" rounds come with lawsuits.

Interesting definition of "combat accurate". Since nobody has suggested hitting innocents is acceptable, I have to conclude that you're making up a new definition of your own.

Ooooh, can I play? See, I wanna pretend that "down zero" means that there are zero bad guys down, meaning you didn't hit any.

Instead, how about we all use common terms in common ways, and agree that less well-defined terms may have alternate definitions?

[Brian1979]

....

[ramzar]

NYPD officers requalify semi-annually with 50 rounds each time and only 39 "combat effective" hits are necessary to qualify.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...Evaluation.pdf

[Brian1979]

Add to that the fact we are thinking of engagement and reloads which induces confusion. Its amazing to make a plan but when the beep goes off some how we still make mistakes and the plan falls apart. I have went from having to study a stage for several minutes or even longer when watching other squads shoot to being able to formulate and execute a plan quickly.

When that beep goes off nothing about fundamental gun handling is being "thought" about because we are thinking of stage design and focused on speed. The draw and engagement all becomes automatic and for someone to convince me that this is not beneficial to a SD situation is just crazy. It really is the true test of a shooter under pressure just short of a simulation.

In terms of combat accurate my understanding wasnt that it had to do with the shooter but rather the gun. If a gun is combat accurate it wont make 1 inch holes at 25yrds it will likely be a 3 inch spread because of loose tolerances etc. I think the issue here is that people used the term to explain their crap abilities because they arent capable of shooting any better.

[1000stars]

Originally Posted by GeoffLinder

It has been proven over and over again that using the sights is just as fast as point shooting AND a whole lot more likely to provide solid hits instead of misses!

I agree with using sights, but in the scenario mentioned(5ft.) pulling the trigger at chest level is quicker than waiting for your gun to reach eye level.

Physics dictate the farther the distance the longer time to travel. There is no link you can post that will contradict that.

If your gun is already at eye level use the sights. If you are drawing from a chest rig or waistband holster that is another story.

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by Brian1979

... When that beep goes off nothing about fundamental gun handling is being "thought" about because we are thinking of stage design and focused on speed.

Did anyone indicate otherwise, or are you just adding what you think is new information to the discussion? I can't tell which.

Originally Posted by Brian1979

The draw and engagement all becomes automatic

In real life, I sure hope your draw is automatic once you've identified a threat. I also hope that you don't stay on "automatic" when determining possible additional threats.

Originally Posted by Brian1979

... and for someone to convince me that this is not beneficial to a SD situation is just crazy.

So crazy that I can't remember anyone trying to convince you otherwise.

Originally Posted by Brian1979

It really is the true test of a shooter under pressure just short of a simulation.

It's a very good test of shooting skill, that's for sure. I'll stipulate without reserve that you are most likely a MUCH better shooter than I am. I think you and I go round-n-round because you can't/won't consider the possibility that anything else is of any importance.

You have developed the perfect skill set for dealing with clear threats. Perhaps nobody on Earth is better prepared to be "faster on the draw" against some criminal than you. May that be the only thing you ever encounter, not wishing that you ever encounter any real threat of course. I hope and expect that you'd "win".

I also sincerely hope for your sake that you never encounter anything like the actual experiences with crime that I have. That would be the worst possible moment to learn the limitations of such a mindset. And honestly, that's my fervent, sincere prayer for you and anyone like you. Why should I wish harm to come to anyone simply because they don't know any better?

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by ramzar

NYPD officers requalify semi-annually with 50 rounds each time and only 39 "combat effective" hits are necessary to qualify.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...Evaluation.pdf

A search of the text reveals that the document does not use the term "combat effective" at all in reference to firearms. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the report? Please explain.

Thanks though ... next time HighLander51 wants to remind me that I am "not a cop" ... (Chicago PD, which I've studied, is just as under-trained, BTW)


And while we're at it ... another installment from the "things come full circle" department":

"From 2003 through 2007, Rob was the Director of The Valhalla Training Center in Montrose, Colorado. ... During this time, Valhalla was identified by the Rand Corporation as a leader in private sector reality based training and as a sole source provider to 10th Group Army Special Forces for Extreme Close Quarters Counter Ambush training. ... Instructors groups that have sought out Rob’s expertise and integrated components of his programs include the Chicago Police Department FTU, South Wales Police Department Training Unit (UK), NSW SEAL Qualification Training, Bavarian Polizie (DE), Orange County (FL) Sheriff’s Office and 19th Group Army Special Forces.

So here you are jumping all over Pincus' case, deriding him for the use of the term "combat accurate" (as he uses it), going on to cite a report by the Rand Corporation which suggests improvements to NYPDs training methods. The same Rand Corporatipon which ID's Pincus' as an expert in reality-based training, and he was the sole-provider to a SF group for counter-ambush training ... etc.

Hmmm ... cop, solider, trainer of Special Forces units, recommended by Rand Corporation ... seems to be hitting all the "authority" points you often proclaim. I just don't get your thought process. By the way, I'm not nearly as much into the hero-worship thing as some. Pincus isn't my guru or anything. I can just see something that demands my attention and consider it dispassionately without reference to "awesomeness points". Why is that such an awful concept?

[mif_slim]

Originally Posted by The Virus

Correct, but training to the standard of "combat accurate" translates to: when the SHTF your groups will open up to Minute Of Elephant or MOE.

Not sure what the exact percentage of group expansion from fist size to human torso size is, but apply that same expansion to combat accurate and you end up with a pretty big area.

So thats what Magpul means by MOE!! Gives the operators an excuse to say its because of Combat their getting MOE.

[ramzar]

Originally Posted by ZombieTactics

A search of the text reveals that the document does not use the term "combat effective" at all in reference to firearms. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the report? Please explain.

Your Raison d'être is for threads like this so that you can take something out of context and run with it.

The reason for the Rand study of NYPD training was the pertinent portion of requals. To extrapolate from one Rand study to another is the height of hyperbole.

Generally, we're talking about various "Combat Effective" hits. I for one am not pointing at particular outfits.

[Bob Hostetter]

<< with more research and work, you guys will get this >>

Hey Rob, I just wanted to reach out and thank you for the encouragement you have given us as a group (?) or perhaps as particular individuals (?). Its nice to know that inspite of the fact that you have no clue who I am, what level of expertise I bring to the table, what kind of training I have received, what kind of training (if any) that I have provided others, that you are able to determine that all I really need is a little more research and work to finally 'get it'. Thank god my journey is almost over .... ! If you have a minute for a lesser being I have one other question, "when I finally 'get it' will my ego become as large as your's?".

[ZombieTactics]

Originally Posted by ramzar

Your Raison d'être is for threads like this so that you can take something out of context and run with it.

That's an odd comment in light of the fact that you represented the Rand study as saying something it did not. Even so, you are simply incorrect. I participate in these threads because I find them interesting. If you think I've taken something out-of-context, it's p to you to show where,

Originally Posted by ramzar

The reason for the Rand study of NYPD training was the pertinent portion of requals.

You made a statement that 39 "combat accurate" hit were required for qualification, posting a link to the article as verification. It said nothing of "combat accurate" anything. You misrepresented the study and got caught. Why not just admit that?

Originally Posted by ramzar

To extrapolate from one Rand study to another is the height of hyperbole.

I don't think I extrapolated anything. I simply noted that you cited an authority (presumably acceptable to you, or why else cite it?) in one case, which seemed to be at odds with what that same authority said in another. Goose ... meet gander.

Originally Posted by ramzar

Generally, we're talking about various "Combat Effective" hits. I for one am not pointing at particular outfits.

Perhaps not, but you sure did call Pincus "haughty". Given Pincus' regular usage of that term, it sure appears that you are directing at least part of your criticism in his direction. If you say differently, I'll just apologize for misreading you and move on.

Why not simply accept that the term has multiple possible meanings, instead of treating it as though only one definition - yours - is possible? I've offered my personal definition: fist-sized groups, as fast as you can get them in training, with the full realization that performance will be worse under actual threat-of-life pressure & stress. Is that a problem?

[The Virus]

Bob, all you have to do is drink the kool aide.

[ZombieTactics]

Meh ... I'm guessing the comment wasn't directed at Bob.

[elSquid]

Originally Posted by ZombieTactics

And while we're at it ... another installment from the "things come full circle" department":
So here you are jumping all over Pincus' case, deriding him for the use of the term "combat accurate" (as he uses it), going on to cite a report by the Rand Corporation which suggests improvements to NYPDs training methods. The same Rand Corporatipon which ID's Pincus' as an expert in reality-based training, and he was the sole-provider to a SF group for counter-ambush training ... etc.

Not to take anything away from Mr Pincus, but apparently the RAND CORPORATION identified Valhalla as being a leader in reality training.


IIRC, Valhalla was this big private facility that contained all sorts of various 360 degree live-fire shoot houses. I saw a bit on it once - really impressive setup. I could see various .mil ( and police! ) agencies renting/contracting it out. I'm not sure if there are any other private installations like it in the US. It probably was (is?) one of a kind. For that reason alone, I could see why the RAND CORPORATION would consider it notable. Now as to how the RAND CORPORATION views Mr Pincus, you would have to ask the RAND CORPORATION since I clearly can't speak for the RAND CORPORATION.




-- Michael