Quick and Dirty Hit Probability Drills

[xebec]

I compete in "tactical Carbine" with my local IDPA club (well not so local--I drive to a bigger city), what a blast man! I like your idea-- here's a couple of more that our club uses.
Ranges are generally kept to below 100M-- more often under 70M. A lot of these guys have done "Urban Rifle" at Thunder Ranch (a local institution, hehe) and Clint keeps the ranges to around 25M. If you have 200M capabilities definately intergrate it but keep it to very limited scenarios.
Set up props to simulate real world cover and concealment-- doorways, 55 gal drums, barricades. Use a raised table and some sandbags to similate foxholes.
Require the shooter to shoot on the move in some scenarios.
Require mag changes-- most people don't shoot 60 rounds or more during a run (all that taping) so don't get to practice tactical mag changes-- have required changes.
Use multiple targets-- 2 shots to 6 different targets is better practice than 12 shots to one target IMHO-- target transition and aquisition is important.
Paint out a portion of you IPSC targets to represent hard cover.
Mix in some "no shoot" targets (civilians) these can be distinguished by putting a t shirt on them if you want it easy or make it hard or put a paper badge, briefcase, or "no-no don't shoot me hands (make a stencil and spray paint these hands so you don't have to make them repeatedly)" Long range targets may require scrutiny with binoculars before engaging, hehe...

[Bryant]

Once all hell breaks loose and people are firing at you, the "no no don't shoot me's" are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and most likely will get hit by either side, not to mention it is very demoralizing if the enemy sees that you only care to kill them and care little as to what gets in the way. If you concentrate to much on not hitting civilian targets between you and your intended target you will more than likely get shot. Maine thing is to not hit people who are in your own cell, take out anything that stands between you and the enemy except your own. We are talking survival not police tactics who waiste entire magazines into one target. Only use full auto to supress when everyone needs a mag change and only move while you have supressive fire to cover you. Don't just concentrate on the targets closest to you, fire at least two rounds into every target in a sweeping motion- then engage the one's still standing. Rely on eachother and use tracers as indicators for low mags so someone can supress the targets while you change out your mags. Use pistols for house sweeping and CQB mainly because you are far more agile in smaller areas with a pistol and never use your sites with a pistol- it will only slow you down, just point and shoot. If a situation or area is questionable, get out- your gut nine times out of ten is right, then waite till nightfall to scout out the area or avoid altogether if the target is not required. Also in field situations always have at least one man with a scope watching and dropping the targets that you fail to see while concentrating on the battle at hand. Most importantly, always have a way out- always.

[xebec]

Good points for a specific scenario Bryant-- but I have to disagree on a few poins. "Shoot" and "No shoot" drills help you develop the ability to rapidly anylyze targets and asess not only their status (civilian or enemy) but also their priority. Practice and competition often set up drills that may not be what you end up facing in the real world but help develop reflexive skills that apply to any scenario. Plus you may need to use a rifle in a situation where you can not indiscriminately kill everyone in your sights.
Sequence of engagement can not be simplified-- Use "tactical order" "tactical sequence" and "Slicing the pie" order of engagent where applicable-- again this should become instinctive.
"point shooting" (not using the sights)Will be what gets you killed if you use it wrong. This tecnique is only effective within a few yard envelope. Use point shooting to about 3 or so yards, "flash" (front sight on COM) sight picture to around 7 yards, and a "dedicated" (front and rear sight alignment)sight picture beyond that. Get out and compete in the IDPA or IPSC, good shooters can draw, aquire the proper sight picture, and fire accurately very rapidly.



[This message has been edited by xebec (edited 02-15-2000).]

[BAKA]

Good posts... I'm reading and re-reading them.

One thing I'd like to point out: The point of my drill isn't so much to practice or highlight the shooter's abilities, as much as it is to point out the rifle's abilities.

It became obvious while running some of these drills that a good shooter with an old bolt action rifle and some stripper clips could actually score higher than a mediocre one with a Colt HBAR and a pile of 30 round mags.

I guess I could compare it to automobile racing. A good driver in a Honda Civic could probably run away from a lousy one in Corvette... this says nothing about the cars. What I'm trying to do is more like having a number of different drivers hit the racecourse in a number of different cars - trying to spot some trends with the different cars elapsed times. For example most people would have better times with Porsche 911's than they would with Ford Festivas. Just like most people will score higher with a Kalashnikov than a Mosin-Nagant.

Perhaps the automobile is not a perfect analogy, but that's the kind of distinction I seek to make.

Maybe it's impossible, but I've always had these questions... like which is better: AK or an AR, a Lee Enfield or a Garand, etc. It's difficult to wade through all the anecdotal information out there and come to any solid conclusions regarding comparisons between combat rifles.
///BAKA

[xebec]

BAKA-- as long as we're comparing apples and apples then some conclusions can be drawn-- AKs and ARs are very close in ability when used in scenarios that simulate combat conditions for which they were designed. Dumping 20 rounds 200 yards downrange on a man sized target favors certain rifles, while bursting through a doorway, doing a "mozambique" drill on two targets followed by a mag change, followed by a "2 COM" drill on two more targets favors different rifles. In the first scenario I would do well with a 98 Mauser, in the second an AK or AR. I use an AK in "tactical carbine" competition and its a real killer (great opportunity to post a pic of one of my favorite MAKs again, hehe...): http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=180379&a=1314507&p=15843338&Sequence=0

Let me just say also that the rifle is of less importance that the shooter... period. A highly trained soldier is effective even with substandard weapons, and a highly trained soldier with a good weapon (AK, AR, Mini 14, etc) well...

[This message has been edited by xebec (edited 02-15-2000).]

[BAKA]

Hello all,
I've been trying to develop a simple drill to determine the relative effectiveness of different rifles in simulated combat conditions. This was prompted by a buddy and I arguing over the merits of our rifles (he had a Mini-14 and I had a MAK90. I think I'm coming up with more questions than answers though. I apologize in advance for how long and rambling this is.

My first (rather simplistic) attempt was to put up a cardboard IPSC target at 100 yards and have the shooter engage it for 1 minute. The instructions are: Put as many holes in the target as possible... reload as fast as you can and take any stance you wish. Your score equals how many hits on the target.

This may have some relevance when comparing rifles of similar power - say one of my old 98 Mausers vs. a No. 4 Mk. 1 Lee Enfield - It seems to be much less fair when comparing something like an AR15 vs M1A... the AR just runs off with it (much quicker to recover from recoil).

So, it seems sensible to include some kind of power factor in the mix... I'm inclined to go the IPSC route and have "major" and "minor" power factors. 5.56 NATO and 7.62X39 end up being "minor" and 7.62 NATO, 30-06 & 8X57 Mauser end up being major. Does this make sense? You'd almost need a "sub-minor" category if you wanted to test .30 Carbine or other pistol-class cartridge carbines....

Also, the time interval could be adjusted. If too long you end up burning up a bunch of ammo (and damn, that Mini-14's barrel gets HOT). If too short, you may not force reloads - which I believe is a fairly important factor to the overall effectiveness of a rifle.

Another question is the range to engage the target. I've read various opinions on this and I'm not sure what to go with. It seems that the majority of actual combat occurs at pretty close range (less than 100m). Anybody have thoughts and what a realistic "average" range is?

I've thought about splitting it up... have two or 3 targets at various ranges between 25m and 200m and have the shooter engage each for a set period of time.

I realize that there are inherent flaws to this entire drill. You probably wouldn't shoot the same target 30 times in real life... but I'm trying for something that is simple to set up, forces reloads, analyzes practical accuracy/speed and takes power into consideration.

How would you modify my drill? Would you toss out the entire concept and go with something else? Have you developed your own method that you consider more relevant? I appreciate your thoughts.
///BAKA

[Drue]

BAKA,


I think that this is a very interesting concept. Your drill test the ability of the shooter/rifle combo to bring fire on a target for a minuet. This may actually required in combat if the target is an ememy position rather than an individual soldier. Probably more often though would be the requirement to engage multiple targets at different ranges quickly. You address this issue with the idea of multiple targets at different ranges.

One idea might be to put two targets at 7, 25, 50, 100 & 200 and have the shooter put two hits on each while recording the time required. Then engage another target at 100 for the minuet, counting the hits. To get a composite score, divide the number of hits during the minuet by the time to hit all of the others with two shots each. This combined score would address both the ability to engage multiple targets quickly, as well as sustained firepower. One way to include the issue of quick mag changes while saving ammo would be to limit to 10 rounds per mag although this would tend to negate the advantage of 30 rnd mags as opposed to 20's which is an advantage in the real world. Perhaps load the 30s with 15 and the 20s with 10?

I agree with your power factor classifications as a measure of skill on the part of the shooter but feel that it is not as important in the real world as the differences in pistol power ala IPSC. There are real, differences, both statistical and physically measurable in the effectiveness of pistol bullets, say between a .32 auto and a .45. In the rifle world, anyone hit in the torso, inside say 200 yds., with a .223 or a 7.62x39 or a .308 or, for that matter, an 8mm Lebel is going down. I realize that there are significant differences in these rounds but in the close range anti-personnel role, they all work.

One way to compare the different rifles would be to have the same shooter run the course with different guns and compare his scores. Another thing to check out would be to try the course (whatever it finally turns out to be) with the same gun and different sights. I would like to see a comparison between issue iron sights, a luminous dot and a low power scope.

Good luck on the projject. I sure would like to see some more input from the group on a practical course of fire to compare these different guns.

Drue

[Packrat]

I agree with Drue about "if you're hit, you're hit", but to equalize the power, how about counting bullet WEIGHT on target -- 1 150 gr .308 = 3 55 gr .223? I don't see why you would need to include mag size in the mix (unless you feel that 20 rnd are easier to use, and give higher score, than 30 rnd), so limit them all to 0 rnds, to get practice changing magazines. If you could use some type of reactive targets, require 4 20 yd targets and 2 100 yd targets be hit BEFORE any hits on the 50 yd target (the main target) are counted. (Set your own distances and numbers, of course.)

If you have a hill with shootable land all around it, make a trail around it, with shooting points or just targets you muct identify. Circle the hill, shooting into it as a backstop all the time. Or if you have access to a quarry, the same thing, except you're shooting out, at the quarry face, while running around on the floor.

------------------
Packrat