Combat accuracy – a working approach

Nothing more controversial!  Here’s a working approach.  The point is a reasonable standard than can be achieved at something like combat, not marksmanship, speeds, by  real people.  That’s why I open it up at distance.  I could argue other definitions too, but I kinda like this one for most purposes.  But hey, I’m open minded.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Combat accuracy – a working approach

  1. First let me say that I’ve noticed that I am the most talkative viewer of this blog, if I become “that annoying guy on the internet” let me know or just ignore me. I comment because the act of doing so forces me to think through things more fully, so while it would be great if someone else learns something due to my comments, I really do it for me.
    I would also like to thank you for the information you present. While there is a plethora of information on the internet, this blog presents what I believe is the most common sense, civilian focused, defense oriented information source currently available.
    As for the issue at hand, I have always taken a dual approach to “combat accuracy.” Because incidents of interpersonal violence are very dynamic events, it is impossible to know what level of precision will be required so I divide it into two possibilities. I just call it big and small but I’ve heard other nomenclature used. The “big” is exactly what you described, the “small” is the head shot or partially obscured target. For the second I use a 3 inch circle or square or sometimes a 3×5 index card. My personal performance standard is one shot on a big (8 inch) target, from concealment, at 5 yards, in 2 seconds AND one shot on a small (3 inch) target, from concealment,at 15 yards, in 3.5 seconds. I

    Like

  2. Hi Ralph. Great info. Richard, I applaud your use of providing comments as a way to think issues through. That is how we improve and we always have to question what we are doing in our training and seek out ways of improving. Everyone should be doing what you do.

    What I would recommend to you is to take your training into a force on force environment anytime you get an opportunity to “feel” how your training is translating into a more dynamic environment than the range. As I have written in many places, the range is like training with a heavy bag. We can get really accurate and project a lot of power when training with the heavy bag using our strikes and kicks (the range equivalent is shooting at a stationary target that doesn’t interact with our actions). It isn’t until we take the skills we have been developing into a dynamic environment with someone trying to fight us using THEIR developed skill that we can learn a greater way to apply our training and see what we need to work on or modify. Just like developing unarmed combat skills, you have to take your developed skills and get in the ring with someone every so often to hone your ability to apply what you have been doing in training. We must always remind ourselves that we aren’t training to fight paper, cardboard and steel plates. Those are just a means to develop skills to fulfill the real purpose of our training – to fight bad people who are trying to hurt or kil us. A final comment I will make is a statement that governs my training and programs, “Our goal is to perfect simplicity”

    To Ralph, I am so glad you are bringing these issues forward. It helps sort out so many issues. To Richard, keep commenting. You are doing yourself a great service and bringing more to the discussion. Take care .
    Lou

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s