More on the importance of creating measurable shooting standards.
NOTE: I’m not bashing Roger Phillips here. I’m pointing out that creating a standard and a means to measure shooting is necessary if we are to learn anything from training and practice.
I can tell you his hits are good. At the end of two days everyone’s hits were good. I don’t know about other PS trainers but Roger Phillips does not have “standards” or any scoring system. The “scoring” is the students and instructor evaluating whether or not the desired result is achieved. Good hits on target. No scoring rings or other artificial stuff. Was that an effective shot or not? Did you accomplish the desired result of holes where you wanted them?
“Good hits on target. … Was that an effective shot or not?” That is EXACTLY what a scoring system answers! So our heroic trainer and hard charging students realize the need to evaluate and measure their shooting but for some reason defining what this “good” performance is in advance is just creating “…scoring rings or other artificial stuff.”
The intended, real-life target, be it a human adversary or whatever else, can be measured so the sizes are known. Likely distances and time frames can be discussed and known as well. Take that knowledge and boil it down to a representative target and assign a value to what “good” hits are worth.
Yes, this can be a bit arbitrary. You might deem a thoracic cavity hit as 5 points, an edge hit on the silhouette as 2 and a miss as 0, for example, or some other value. In reality, a center hit might not be immediately effective and an edge hit might work. Hell, the guy might run away if you miss or even just seeing you attempt to fumble your pistol from a holster. It is hard to predict that an edge hit is only 40% effective. A complete miss might hit a brick wall or it might kill a bystander and land you in jail even if you survive the encounter.
So how much are hits worth? The real value is providing a known, consistent metric that give a numerical representation of a shooter’s effort that can be compared to another shooter or to a later effort to monitor and track improvement.
Roger Phillips was quoted in a different article complaining about being penalized several points during a standards course of fire for missing target center. He says he should have received full value because his errant shot landed in the silhouette target’s throat area and that would have been effective on a real person.
This is a wrong way to approach this. Paper targets aren’t real adversaries, as the “games’ll getcha killed” crowd likes to point out when bad mouthing practical competition shooting. The desired point of impact (center chest in this case) was known in advance and an errant shot, even if dumb luck put it in the throat, is a MISS by a good 12 inches or more.
For training purposes, we don’t care that a shooter’s flinch or other error pushed the shot towards the head. What matters is the shot missed the intended point of impact. This should be noted so the error can be corrected. Noting this with point totals provides an objective measure, as opposed to some feel-good assessment, and is an easy way to stay organized to help track if improvements are being made. The same course can be revisited and a higher score indicates the shooter is improving the skills tested by that course.
JSW
Jan 08, 2013 @ 20:36:15
Why, for sake of argument, must I measure myself against another shooter? The goals I strive for are not for that person, nor are his goals mine. I strive to better my performance with every session, not another’s. So it is my performance I am judging myself by- regardless the standards set by ‘professionals’ in SpecOps or (God forbid) NYPD LEO, or a small coterie of people shooting thousands of rounds a year to get ‘good’.
And, in all honesty, if I am aiming at a perp’s heart and hit his throat, damn, I’m GOOD! and the perp is very, very unlucky. BFD: he’s down, I’m alive. That’s the standard I strive to. (Praying to God I never, ever have to test this, but I practice to better myself ‘just in case’.)
In the scenario of IDP and USPCA (or whatever the games names are- humor me: there was just an USPCA ad on the tube), when I shoot them, it isn’t to see if I’m better than the others, it’s to see if I’ve bettered myself. If I ‘win’ some kind of trophy, I couldn’t care less: I’m not in it for the money, the glory, the record books, the trophies, or the recognition. I’m in it to practice the craft of saving my life.
Of course I want all hits to be ‘on target’. Which part of the target? CM, of course- and that’s where I aim. If I misjudge recoil and hit the throat? No big deal.
And if I miss the whole target and hit a nearby civilian who should have been seeking cover, well, the chips are going to fall where they fall. I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jan 09, 2013 @ 14:59:18
>> Why, for sake of argument, must I measure myself against another shooter?
First, the “other” shooter can be you from previous range sessions. Did you tie or beat your previous effort or are you getting worse? If you strive to better your performance with every session you need a way to measure performance to have something to compare.
Second, it gives a sense of perspective. How skilled can a person realistically get? Many public sector (military and police) personnel are novices yet wrongly believe themselves skilled because they have no concept of what better skill entails. They pass, or maybe make “expert” ratings, on a low level qualifications and have no experience beyond that.
Read this for more:
>> And, in all honesty, if I am aiming at a perp’s heart and hit his throat, damn, I’m GOOD!
No. In a training/practice environment against static targets that aren’t real, this is not good. In the real world you take what you can get. On the range that is NOT a “throat”, it’s a different target or scoring area. Intending to shoot one target (silhouette center), missing it and accidentally hitting a different target (silhouette head) is still a miss.
Try this: Run a tape measure from the center of the target area you intended to hit up to the errant shot in the throat/head. Now, rotate the tape 90 degrees left or right. That same shot error, if pushed left or right instead of straight up, likely missed the entire silhouette. Rewarding such error, even if dumb luck put it on a different target (head/throat scoring area) is rewarding a miss.
This is why I like targets with concentric rings for marksmanship exercises. Too much shot error in ANY direction is the same, lowered result. Silhouettes are good for some types of training, but not for fundamental marksmanship because novices confuse sloppy shooting with “good” hits.
LikeLike
Tyrus Moulder
Jan 17, 2013 @ 10:23:25
JSW’s comment regarding hitting a civilian who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time speaks volumes about his disregard for the well-established tenets of armed combat. Gangsters and other similar criminal types don’t care about who they hurt or kill. Assuming that every civilian maintains a high state of mental preparedness in the event that JSW (or a similarly-trained individal) is in the area engaged in a lethal confrontation is a weak argument in support of one’s substandard gunfighting skills. If you don’t care about hurting/killing unintended victims because the prospect of prison or the loss of your home doesn’t bother you, than you should probably reconsider carrying a gun for personal protection.
As for aiming at the heart and hitting your target in the throat I would encourage you to purchase some training on the fundamentals of marksmanship.
LikeLike
Tyrus Moulder
Jan 17, 2013 @ 11:18:05
JSW your comment that it is somehow acceptable to shoot an unintended victim who happens to be in your line of sight during a lethal force encounter is unacceptable to anyone with any real experience in the profession of arms. The comment that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six is the typical sophomoric response of someone who has never faced a real threat, or has participated in an insufficient amount of training to properly develop an effective combat mindset. Gang members and other criminals who choose to use firearms in the furtherance of their criminal activities do not care about who they hurt or kill. Your comment is something they might say, if given the chance.
As for missing your intended target and hitting (by chance) an equally lethal area of the body I would encourage you to get out and practice until you’ve worked out all the bugs that might plague your application of the marksmanship fundamentals. Anyone who makes the decision to carry a firearm for protection must also accept the equally important responsibility of developing and maintaining a level of proficiency that can’t be mistaken for mediocrity.
LikeLike
Roger Phillips
Jan 26, 2013 @ 12:47:47
Shooting for score is a very important part of the training equation. A good shooter will always be better than a poor shooter. But how well you shoot is only a small portion of training for a life threatening confrontation. Everything that I teach is “fight focused,” the ability to put the hits right where you want the hits is just one part of the equation. In a reactive gunfight where I am behind in the reactionary curve by, at the very best .2 seconds and at the very worse 3 seconds (and that was the context of the video) my predominant thinking is to not get shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned until I can get into the fight. When the feces is deep you have to have skills that you you can fall back on.
Are those skills optimal on the square range? Of course they are not! Are they optimal inside of the suboptimal situation that we are training for? Yes they are!
If you do not train for the skills when the feces is the deepest you are training to a lower standard. If you think that all you need is competition based skill sets when you are fighting for your life, then you have probably not taken your skills into varying life threatening situations or into properly structured force on force.
All of the things that you see in that very short clip are just one little piece of the puzzle inside of a very large self defense puzzle. Understanding the context of what you are seeing is the key to understanding what is being taught. This is stuff that comes out of real life threatening encounters and stuff that has come from hundreds of thousands of hours of force of force training by a very large group of people all over this country. This is not just one nutty guy that does not care abut shooting innocent people. This is information that has been networked, worked, reworked, analyzed, tested, fought, and bled for ten years now.
Every disagreement that we have right now and every disagreement that we have had in the past on this type of training all comes down to context and semantics. If you do not understand the context you will never understand the training. If you do not understand the language that I am using, pure semantics will drive the debate forever.
Back in 2001-2003 the “point shooters” use to debate the “competitors.” Until one day when a Grand Master came to train with the point shooters. He discovered that what we were debating on was nothing more than semantics and context. We spoke of the exact same things but called them something else. Point shooters used historical terminology and competitors used more modern terminology. The point shooters context was all about “the fight” and the competitors context was all about the game and the score. When it was all said and done the Grand Master informed us all about the absolute consistency of what was being taught. the differences were very small and all came down to context and semantics.
That debate came to an end long ago.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jan 26, 2013 @ 13:21:44
>> Shooting for score is a very important part of the training equation. A good shooter will always be better than a poor shooter.
That’s really what I’m trying to get across. Problem is, what is “good”? Ask a typical cop, soldier, Marine, or hunter if they’re a “good” shot. On match day (if they ever show up) a low score indicates otherwise. Oh, but they’re “good” shooters. See, competition shooting is bad/wrong/unrealistic and their low score is a flaw inherent in competition and not in their lack of fundamental skill. It doesn’t affect their “real world” ability, except in a match or other scored higher-standard effort.
>> But how well you shoot is only a small portion of training for a life threatening confrontation.
True. I’m a huge advocate of drilling fundamentals and most gun owners, police, military, etc., need work there. Everyone can get better. Even if fundamental skill exercises aren’t tactically relevant, solid basics translate everywhere. A skilled shooter taking his first tactically orientated class will pick up things faster because he isn’t struggling with marksmanship and gun handling and can focus on the task at hand.
>> If you think that all you need is competition based skill sets when you are fighting for your life, then you have probably not taken your skills into varying life threatening situations or into properly structured force on force.
I agree. It’s useful to study outside the scope of your personal experience, which is why I viewed your video and bothered to ask questions about it. I don’t know why some “fight focused” people don’t do likewise.
>> Back in 2001-2003 the “point shooters” used to debate the “competitors.”
Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals, published in 1990, discusses this nicely. Competition shooters know this. Savvy tactical shooters do as well. As for the other 79.9 million gun owners in America…
LikeLike
Roger Phillips
Jan 26, 2013 @ 14:49:32
“What is good?” All comes down to the context of what you are training for.
Do you want to be the very best target shooter ever or do you want to be the very best fighter that you can inside of a very busy life?
The self defense puzzle is a huge puzzle and a life long journey. The number of areas that you have to train to a level of proficiency is quite high. But if you just want to be a good target shooter, you can focus on just that one thing.
There are a number of places that you can train out there, but not very many focus on the fight as in depth as Suarez International. Since we are willing and able to teach stuff that others are not, our time management is different. We have made the decision a long time ago to teach more in depth fight focused material, rather than spent time prepping for a test of the standards. It is just a business decision that sets us apart from the crowd.
As far as the Video clip and the “Point Shooting Progressions” (PSP) course, the most likely thing that is said by a student after the class is that it is “like drinking from a fire hose.” It is not just a point shooting class that teaches dynamic movement, it is a very deep course that opens the students to a different way of thinking. It is a study in the fight continuum and a study finding out what you need to do to be as deadly as you can be inside of the very fluid aspect of a fight.
The standard of the course is set in the very first lecture “At the end of these two days you will be able to do what most people believe to be impossible.” Out of the thousands and thousands of students that I have run through the course only two people did not hit that level.
So, is that “good?” “Is that good enough?”
In my eyes I will never be “good enough” and I hope my students share the same mentality.
The goal in the PSP family of courses (there is also Advanced PSP, Long Gun PSP, and PSP Force on Force) is to instill a certain confidence in the student…..a “I’ve been here, I’ve done this, and I’ve got this!” confidence.
“The fight is going to be what the fight is going to be.” and the study of the fight continuum prepares you for the varying fights that can show up at your door step. The competition based skills that I own are part of the course, but they are only one set of tools that fit into the varying circumstances of a fight.
When we look at all of the “well roundedness” that is being advocated, is there really time to be a specialist in any one thing? And how good do you need to be in one aspect of the fight before you need to look at and train in another aspect of the fight?
LikeLike
Roger Phillips
Jan 27, 2013 @ 00:01:36
(quote) More on the importance of creating measurable shooting standards.
NOTE: I’m not bashing Roger Phillips here. I’m pointing out that creating a standard and a means to measure shooting is necessary if we are to learn anything from training and practice. (quote)
I am not feeling bashed at all. You have your beliefs that you run through your filters and I have my beliefs that I run through my filters. Obviously our filters are very different, but that does not make either of us wrong. The only thing that matters to me is if you can articulate why you believe what you believe and whether I can do the same. I absolutely disagree that “scoring” a target is the only way to improve your shooting. That may be helpful after you have learned the skills and have learned to diagnose the target. Inside of the Point Shooting Progressions (PSP) family of courses there are so many things covered that are not covered by nearly anyone else, that there is no time for a test. As a matter of fact “testing and scoring” would devalue the course due to cutting into the time for far more important things that need to be covered. Testing and scoring in a typical course is no big deal because most of what is taught can be and is taught by literally hundreds, if not thousands of different instructors. Since the information is pretty standardized, taking time to score and test is no big deal. Suarez International has a different business model and training philosophy. The value of the course is not just in the “shooting” it is in the information that cannot be had at many other places due to unwillingness or inability to teach it. There is nothing standardized about what we teach. We create better shooters, but instead of believing in the need to test that fact, we spend that time to create better fighters. Then we give these fighters the opportunity to test their improvement by fighting their peers in force on force (FOF.)
What follows is a quote that he received from one of my students about the video in question.
(quote) “Good hits on target. … Was that an effective shot or not?” That is EXACTLY what a scoring system answers! So our heroic trainer and hard charging students realize the need to evaluate and measure their shooting but for some reason defining what this “good” performance is in advance is just creating “…scoring rings or other artificial stuff.”
The intended, real-life target, be it a human adversary or whatever else, can be measured so the sizes are known. Likely distances and time frames can be discussed and known as well. Take that knowledge and boil it down to a representative target and assign a value to what “good” hits are worth.(quote)
In your world this is obviously important………in mine and that of most of my student base it is not. We do not shoot for score……..we practice to shoot for blood. When we are working the varying angles that he work inside of the movement matrix an A zone hit is not always the optimal hit. The optimal hit is dependent on the angle of attack and since we only care about training for the reality of the fight we do not train for A zone hits as they are portrayed on corresponding targets. We train for the very best hit dependent on how extreme the angle of attack is. If I am doing extreme angle shooting (and we do) and targeting the head I will happily put my shots into the sticks on the target stands, to ingrain the proper placement of the shot when shooting for blood at that angle. I do not care about score and only care about training to be as deadly as I can in a life threatening confrontation. This makes this impossible to score on a piece of paper, but the very best way to fight in reality. Training within reality like this allows us to absolutely excel when we are testing the standard inside of FOF.
(quote) Yes, this can be a bit arbitrary. You might deem a thoracic cavity hit as 5 points, an edge hit on the silhouette as 2 and a miss as 0, for example, or some other value. In reality, a center hit might not be immediately effective and an edge hit might work. Hell, the guy might run away if you miss or even just seeing you attempt to fumble your pistol from a holster. It is hard to predict that an edge hit is only 40% effective. A complete miss might hit a brick wall or it might kill a bystander and land you in jail even if you survive the encounter.
So how much are hits worth? The real value is providing a known, consistent metric that give a numerical representation of a shooter’s effort that can be compared to another shooter or to a later effort to monitor and track improvement. (quote)
Here is the scoring system that we use when we test is FOF. My training partners comes at me with everything that he has and tries to shoot, stab, or bludgeon me. I do everything that I can to not take any damage and inflict as much as I possibly can. My training partners are good training partners and they gauge the amount of damage that I have inflicted and stop the attacks once they believe that I have nailed a central nervous system stoppage or have done enough damage to have stopped them. Then I do the same for them!
We wear only enough clothing so that we do not bleed all over everything. We take the welts and the pain. We check the ego at the door and we train as if our lives depend on it. No BS, no lying, no hose fests, and no game playing. We train for blood and we act accordingly. We work a huge portion of the fight continuum. If you can think of a realistic scenario we have probably fought it.
As far as all of the concern for innocents, that is why you must train within the reality of the fight. If you have not you are going to panic when you discover that you are not as ready as you thought that you were. “That” is more dangerous than anything else to the innocents.
(quote) Roger Phillips was quoted in a different article complaining about being penalized several points during a standards course of fire for missing target center. He says he should have received full value because his errant shot landed in the silhouette target’s throat area and that would have been effective on a real person.
This is a wrong way to approach this. Paper targets aren’t real adversaries, as the “games’ll getcha killed” crowd likes to point out when bad mouthing practical competition shooting. The desired point of impact (center chest in this case) was known in advance and an errant shot, even if dumb luck put it in the throat, is a MISS by a good 12 inches or more.(quote)
That was in 1999, two shots at 25 yards, in just over three seconds, from concealment, and I was two inches out of the primary targeted area of the upper thoracic cavity. When you are pushing yourself misses do happen. But, you missed the point of the story. The point of the story is that if there was ever a “one shot stop” this was it. It was a perfect central nervous system hit that was marked “three points down.” That is the issue with shooting for score, it does not take “good enough for a tough situation” into consideration. My FOF training partners would have given me the score that that “non perfect shot” would have actually earned and so would have anyone on the streets when I took their legs, their arms, and their ability to breath.
(quote) For training purposes, we don’t care that a shooter’s flinch or other error pushed the shot towards the head. What matters is the shot missed the intended point of impact. This should be noted so the error can be corrected. Noting this with point totals provides an objective measure, as opposed to some feel-good assessment, and is an easy way to stay organized to help track if improvements are being made. The same course can be revisited and a higher score indicates the shooter is improving the skills tested by that course. (quote)
Once again, there are hundreds of places to train like that, but often there is very little value to those courses beside the constant repetition to improve the score or to shave that hundredth of a second off of the time. When people are tired of that repetition, they have a place to go to actually learn how to take those skill, add more skills, and learn how to fight. It is just the natural progression of things for many people that train. It is hard to judge if you have never taken a course like that. Some people are happy where they are and some people just need more. We are there for those that need more.
LikeLike
Bill MO
Jan 27, 2013 @ 16:01:06
What is good enough in my eyes has to have a answer to this question first. What is the goal of the shooter? Are you shooting for smallest grouping, all in the 10 ring, time or are you shooting to stop the threat of life.
For the average CCer. Are you facing a hostage situation or a mugging on the street? Situation will dictate the answer to the question of “what’s good enough?” So one need to prepare for whatever the situation calls for. You need to ask and know can I make that one shot kill to stop the BG holding my wife hostage? Can I make the hits needed to go home safe from the BG mugging me on the street corner?
Being able to shoot is a skill of many needs, but for the common very day Joe looking to protect his family and self I see the target area different than the guy standing on the firing line target shooter. While the all in the 10 rings looks good and gets praise from those standing around watching. Does it cover whats needed to save the day when crime strikes? My answer is no. Most target shooters take to much time to make that wonderful shot and hit the bullseye. For the average Joe he needs skills in winning gunfights more than he needs skills at shooting bullseye and time is a factor. If one looks back in history I think you will find more good shot, gunfighters than you’ll find good target shoots who are good gunfighters.
Target area of the gunfighter for me is about 6-8 inches wide running from the belt line to the shoulders. Then reducing down to about 4 inches from the bottom of the neck to the eyebrows. Any hit there is a good hit, the closer to center line the better but any hit is good enough.
You need to do this with movement. Why movement ? Because not taking hits yourself is more important than getting hits. Hits on you are bad but even if you do get hit does not mean the fight over. Fight through it, many a gunfight have been won by those who had been shot.
So what is good enough? That is the question and also the answer. As Roger has stated…. “Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictate tactics, and tactics dictate techniques…….techniques should never dictate anything.”…. What techniques does the situation call for? Now the question is can you do it?
Can you do the one hole shot drill? At what distance?…..Then can you make the hits while moving to put the BG on the ground and save your life when its needed.
So do we need standards? I’d have to say yes. But then the question comes up what are the standards one needs? And that depends on the situation. And the question are you ready no matter what comes your way? Can you make what ever shot and hit you need? If not then you are not good enough and the standard has not been met..
Yes I am one of Roger’s students, some of the high point I got from his class are…..The fight will be what the fight will be…..See what you need to see to make the hit you need to make….And that means being about to do it from A-Z. That means from contact distance to how far can a pistol shoot.
My understanding of most fights with a gun are inside of 10 yds and a large part of those fall in the 3-5 yd range. I therefore see the need for being able to move, point shoot and not get hit yourself the most important parts of training and practice.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jan 28, 2013 @ 17:12:15
Thanks for the remarks, Bill. I think this is a good approach.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jan 28, 2013 @ 17:53:11
Thanks for your comments. If you’d like to expand on this, and give all the readers here a more thorough overview of your classes and teaching methodology, please send me some articles and I’ll post them here with links to your websites.
Writer’s Guidelines here:
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Jun 22, 2013 @ 19:40:48
Reviewing this post after some time, my original question remains unanswered. Let me repeat it:
I’d be curious what sort of hits he’s obtaining like this. Is there any sort of standard these guys adhere to? What is a trained student expected to do? Instructor? Master?
After all this, I still don’t have an answer to what should have been a simple question. I’ll run anything Mr. Phillips sends me, if he ever bothers to do so.
LikeLike
Ballistic Masturbation: Just Say NO! | Firearm User Network
Sep 15, 2014 @ 07:53:51