Search and Assess

Training Training and Tactics
1

In my shooting career (both military and LE), I have come across several methods of searching and assessing. Early in my military career, it was “eye, muzzle, target.” When I became an instructor, the Marine Corps was revamping its marksmanship program; and, in the process, searching and assessing was one of the things that changed–when I say changed, I mean it kind of became location-based depending on who the range officer was. As we were transitioning from iron sights to ACOGs, and from basic field-fire to a table system; our new range officer brought a new-to-me technique of just-below-ready and scan with eyes only. Once I became an LEO, my agency seems to have stuck with the latter method–though they don’t even teach it for the basic qual, just for the tactical teams.

So, here’s what I’d like to do: if you’re a proponent of either method, let’s have a friendly debate, if one exists, as to the merits of each and their usefulness. If you know of alternatives, go ahead and slap them into the mix too. …and this goes for both rifles/carbines and pistols. If you think searching and assessing is a waste of time, tell me why. Let’s see what you got.

2

I don’t know if this is what you are going for, I hope this helps, I’m looking at it from an LEO/HD situation, because when I was in the Marines, by golly you stood on your hind feet at 200 and shot one target at a time.

We taught our recruits to anchor your weapon on the threat, or threat area, generally muzzle slightly depressed, and scan with your eyes.

The rational being that if you are moving the weapon with your eyes looking through the sights, by the time you see the threat, signal your brain to stop the swing and press the trigger, you are past the threat.

Even if the shooters are just moving the muzzle to cover, if you watch, you will see many muzzles jerk back to center on the target when using the eyes and the gun move method.

When engaging multiples we taught to shoot the threat, look for the next threat, move the muzzle to the threat, focus, shoot - ‘shoot, look, move, focus, shoot…’ Teaching police shotgun we taught ‘shoot, cycle and look, move, focus, shoot…’

Moving the muzzle when scanning kind of violates those principles.

I believe that one of the reasons folks adopt the move the muzzle/sights with the eye mentality are competitive events using the plate rack or other multiple target deals with the targets set at known locations - you know where to, and how much to, move the muzzle for the next target.

In terms of the whole ‘cover down, scan, and breathe’ mantra. While it is good in concept it is generally poorly presented in training and quickly becomes meaningless range ballet. In our program we had to start with the premise that the majority of our shooters had little or no experience firing a firearm. We also had to do with time constraints due to the schedule. Not an ideal situation, but reality.

I always felt we wasted a lot of time introducing the cover down scan and breath aspect the first day or two. Some of our staff spent more time haranguing students to cover down than they did correcting marksmanship problems.

Plus, a thinking man quickly observed that the recruits weren’t think about why they were doing what they were doing when you saw them focusing on scanning after admin loads or after clearing the weapon before going to the holster.

JMRO, I hope I understood your question.

3

Interesting thread, and I am definitely looking forward to this discussion. OP - thanks for starting it.

I’m also very curious how an instructor teaches this on a plain old square range. Do you introduce items uprange? Have AI’s perform some action before or after a evolution?

This could be a very valuable/sticky thread, and I’ll happily prune posts if they get off-topic.

26 Inf - I like your term “range ballet”. I have also heard people use the term “gun kata”. I’m pretty sure we are thinking the same thing.

4

That’s pretty much exactly what I was looking for. It’s interesting to me that it changed from the time you were in, to the time I was in. Since the method I was taught was around before I joined, I can only guess what happened. Since I can only guess, I’d say that the eye-muzzle-target idea probably stemmed from MOUT/CQB that the Marine Corps began integrating into infantry school. To clarify, we were never instructed to keep sight picture. We were always told to look over the sights. Nevertheless, range ballet is exactly what it became at our facility, regardless of the method. It wound up being that the shooters would put in just enough effort to not get yelled at by their coach.

My last statement kind of rolls into this one. What we wound up doing was changing the approach we took when we certified Combat Marksmanship Coaches (CMCs) and Trainers (CMTs). When the course transitioned from the standard KD range (Table 1) to the combat-oriented training (Table 2), we would set up students three targets apart. They would have their assigned target point with a target to their left and right. When I was in the tower, I would select a random shooter and face one or both of his/her peripheral target(s) immediately after completing the perscribed drill, for only one second. I became fairly clear who was just going through the motions, because they would have to raise their muzzle back to the ready and rarely hit high center-mass. My facility only had square ranges, so that’s the best that we could come with at the time with what we had (pneumatic, timed turners). Giving the students the idea that they actually had to look for something, seemed to improve their grasp on the concept.

For carbines/rifles, I still prefer the second method (eye scan). In my experience, it’s easier to snap your muzzle to LOS from center, than to drag all the way across your FOV. For pistols (for transparency, I’ve only been to one course that actually incorporated S&A), I’ve been working with the idea of bringing the pistol to a modified-“chest ready” while eye scanning. My theory is that you can still shoot while indexed at the chest, while reducing the distance the muzzle has to travel across FOV. As you find a peripheral target, you can push the muzzle back out to extension while getting rounds on target. I hope that’s not confusing.

5

There are a few threads covering scan&assess and other techniques that can be “range kata” for good or bad. Several years ago, one of our SMEs here noted that scan&assess wasn’t part of his team’s range training, but they consistently found themselves doing it in the shoothouse or in real-world.

Personally, I’ve preferred to instill a sense of problem solving, vs making shooters do rote movements with no stimulus or drive. While there are clearly advantages to regaining situational awareness after addressing a threat, there are so many ways to do it that simply making shooters look left and right (with or without their muzzle) doesn’t reinforce what we are really trying to get at. Even if you did give the shooters on the line something to see, like a threat (I know of one instructor who held up a sign saying “3 more rounds!”), they can’t safely address an up-range problem, so what do you do then?

Scanning after a shoot can mean looking to either side, but it can also mean doing a 360, checking yourself for extra holes, re-focusing on the downed threat, or maybe moving or checking around a piece of furniture or around the next corner. Situation dictates.

With the gun or without the gun? I have no preference, though if I am scanning with a pistol, I usually tuck it in some fashion. I’ve done both, I’ve had students do both. What matters more to me is whether or not they can explain why they did it the way they did.

My preference, given adequate resources, is to reinforce the concept in the shoothouse or in force on force, where I can introduce a variable from an odd angle, or from farther down range, and reinforce the need to scan and assess, vs just shaking your head.

6

Good stuff, thanks. I tried a site search, but apparently something went wrong because I kept getting an error. My apologies if this is a dupe thread.

To be clear, although my thread is focused on methodology, I’m not necessarily seeking methods for the sake of methods. I completely agree that the best thing would be to incorporate a spherical, real-world environment; but unless you have those resources, you’re stuck having to make do with what you have. My point in all this is to establish effective, practical…practices in order to establish the underlying principle.

I can understand why a SME’s team wouldn’t incorporate it in their training. They are dedicated shooters whose job is to seek out targets. That is their mindset. They don’t need anything in addition.

…which brings me back to my purpose. It is not for the sake of teaching or using a method, it for the sake of training the mindset. For someone whose job title does not include “slaying bodies,” they need what to do. The scanning part is not that difficult to understand, but what do they do with their gun? I had active duty Marines finish a drill, and immediately drop their M16 to low-slung. I teach license to carry classes, and I offer my students a little extra, optional time for an ungraded discussion in mindset and SA. Most of them are clueless as to what to do with their handgun while trying to maintain SA. I’ve had everything from re-holstering to flagging every bystander in the area. So, touch on one of your statements, situation absolutely dictates. But if methods can be introduced to instill the desired mindset, and that can cover a variety of circumstances; I don’t take issue with using them.

7

I only brought it up to point out that there’s some solid info around here; not to say that this thread shouldn’t be a stand-alone. I think it’s a great discussion.

I don’t bring up the SME’s experience as proof; more of a point that a technique that’s not practiced on the range can make its way into actual use. I hate the “XXX does it so it must be good” argument; if that’s how it came across, I apologize. Astute and well trained practitioners will find a way to check their work, their surroundings, and bystanders. My own experience mirrors this on a much smaller level. You don’t need to be a high level professional to make that happen, but you do need enough gas in the tank to make decisions.

Resources matter. I’m lucky in that regard.

At the end of it all, I’m not going to jump a student if they scan, if they don’t scan, if their muzzle tracks with them (safely), or if they keep it fixed on target and scan with their eyes only. I just ask that they have an explanation for why or why not if asked. If I were in your shoes, teaching CCW classes, I’d show and rep some options, explain the why’s and why not’s, and ask students to be responsible for their choices from there on.

8

No misunderstanding from me. I think we’re actually pretty close to the same page. My apologies if my reply seemed snarky or challenging, that was not my intent.

I’m more concerned with students’ grasp on SA. If they have none when we start, I just like to have something to introduce to get the point across in a controlled, tactically/practically-sound way.

9

I think it can be good think to scan and assess. To break the tunnel vision that many people find themselves in. However I think it can also be over-stressed. I’ve seen range instructors freak out on people when they didn’t scan and assess. I don’t understand that mentality either. Especially when you’re not in a military unit. Regardless, we tend to teach to ensure the initial target is down (what could be worse than taking your eyes off of the bad guy/girl, look around and then find out they aren’t out of the fight after all!), then do a measured look around, always taking time to recheck the bad guy/girl.

I took a class once where the instructor called it the “Tactical Pony Tail Flip” due to how dudes would whip their head side to side so fast that there was no way they could actually see, process and act upon anything they might have seen. It was interesting to see video footage of it later when we worked it ourselves on the range. After that, we slowed it down significantly.

10

LOL. Another great term. What you are describing is exactly why we would give students unexpected targets. It would get them out of the mechanical repetitiveness, and into actually scanning for threats.

That’s another great point to include in SA. “Target down” does not necessarily equal target incapacitated/lack of threat. I like where this thread is going.

11

I was in before they began teaching MOUT - 1972-76 was my time. We shot strictly KD on Edson Range - essentially the 50 round National Match Course.

12

FI’s spend waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time and attention on the scan and assess process. We create exhaustive, multi-step, terminology-laden dogmatic processes that busy shooters minds with everything but priorities. Endless debates about the minutiae follow, usually to no productive outcome or agreement even among highly credentialed and experienced people.

Move the head/gun together, or just the head?
Finger on or off trigger? When?
Primary/secondary scan?
360 degree check, just the head or turn the whole body?
Include gun check? Injury check?

The goal is to break tunnel vision, ensure threat stays down, improve SA (new attackers, arriving friendlies). It’s not that complicated. You have to teach something though. The trouble is that the chosen technique may have no foundation other than it being the most compatible with the venue’s square range safety rules, and the last or most influential course on the venue’s instructor.

13

There have been a lot of good observations made in this thread. It may seem as if what follows is a drift off topic, but I don’t intend it that way…

When I went through the Academy in 1976, we watched a filmed called ‘Observation and Perception on Patrol’ (I think that is the title). If I could explain it in several words it would be ‘look with the intent of seeing something.’ We also saw a driving film which introduced a concept called ‘commentary driving’ - essentially talking to yourself about the environment in which you are driving. The one thing I remember about the film is the line ‘uh oh, here’s a ball, where is the kid?’

I took those two concepts to heart when I went back home and got into the habit of talking to myself while on patrol. After a while I didn’t have to think about it, I just did it - mentally, not out loud like a schizo. This developed a sense of what I later came to know as SA (hey, it was 1976-77).

I have found many advantages to this habit aside from police work, but for our safety and well-being it is an important skill to develop - look with the intention of seeing something and being aware of the environment around us by talking to ourselves about what we see.

Taking it one step further, use Socratic questioning during practical training, began with the question ‘What just happened?’ follow it up with 'What is the most important thing for you to do right now? or, as Lou Holt said, ‘What’s Important Now?’ Let the student solve the problem with gentle nudges provided by additional questions. When they’ve solved the problem with solutions THEY’VE arrived at, they buy into the solution and it gives the ‘Timid Tommy’s’ a boost of confidence.

Obviously, these methods work best in small groups or individual training situations. They are ideal for structured force on force where you can halt the action with a signal, or if you are using a force simulator system such as FATS.

So, TLDR: When I’ve asked a student/officer 'what is important now?, after they’ve told me ‘the driver busted out of the car and raised a gun so I shot him?’ I’ve never received the response ‘I should stand here and scan.’ Nope, generally got more important things to do - the priorities:

  1. Move - get off threat axis, create distance, get cover;
  2. Head up in the fight - check environment
  3. Reload
  4. Head up in the fight - check environment
  5. Blood sweep
  6. Head up in the fight - check environment
  7. Communicate
  8. Head up in the fight - check environment

I truly believe in most circumstances the most important thing we can instill in someone is step one - move!

14

Good post with some good perspective. A similar thread to this was out a while ago and the OP seemed defensive in the following discussion.

15

That’s the crux of the matter. There is too much time spent on methodology across every point of shooting and tactics (gunfighting), and not enough on the theory, or why the particular methods are used. If you create a method only for the sake of something new, it serves no purpose–except maybe to bring you a few minutes of fame until your method is shown to be useless or the fad wears off. If we as an industry (FIs) would spend more time on the why, the what would be a lot easier to teach; and it would allow students to build their own critical decision-making skills for whatever dynamic environment they might find themselves in.

I don’t think it’s off topic at all. After all, the point of searching and assessing is to maintain/regain SA. Back to Chameleox’s OP, there’s a reason that professionals don’t need to incorporate this type of training: it’s their habit before, during, and after gunfights. The disparity arises in non-professionals who haven’t developed that habit yet. Take a look at the ratio of schools/instructors who teach mindset based-training vs those who teach method-based training; and again, between those who offer course specific to mindset vs those who only teach methods.

16

For CQB stuff, we like to see our guys shoot the bad-guy down, leave the muzzle on him, and scan with your eyes. If a new threat emerges, then the muzzle gets driven to it. As mentioned, this helps keep from whipping the muzzle past the new target if everything was in motion. A secondary thing I like about leaving the muzzle on the downed guy while scanning with your eyes is on the outside chance he becomes a threat again. He’s already done something bad enough to get shot, you may have to shoot the known threat again. Sidenote is that we do want a scan before we start the process of putting hands on the shot guy.

17

That makes sense to me. Does your thinking change between individual and team tactics? What is your thought process when not in a CQB setting?

18

Great point, when I learned the S&A while shooting it came with a little story that has stuck with me whenever I think about S&A and doing relaods up in your work space . It was a Marine instructor, we were discussing weapon choices during a lunch break that he used while kicking down doors in Afghanistan / Iraq and mentioned to me as point man he used a pump shotgun (590) for entries into buildings. When I asked why he told me a story of one of his squad mates who shot a combatant in the head with his M4. He looks away from the downed combatant and begins a reload from his kit while taking his eyes and weapon off the enemy. He brings his weapon down off the target to his waist line and begins the reload when he is shot by the same combatant from the ground and is now paralyzed from the neck down. Apparently his m4 round penetrated the forehead glanced around his skull and exited the back of his head without penetrating the brain bucket. Their intel guys were questioning him later that day with a bandage on his head.

19

That’s a good story…and a reminder of the assess portion of S&A. …which all comes back to SA. Personally, I think that situation could be better mitigated by a dead check and a disarm, than with a different weapon system, but potato-potahto. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve made my share plus most of y’all’s shares of mistakes; and it sucks that he had to learn that lesson the hard way. But this is the benefit of AARs; we can learn good lesson from others’ mistakes.

20

I have little interest in performing range-kata-esque dance moves that don’t serve a purpose in gaining functional skill while working repetitive exercises intended to improve mechanical functional ability.
I would argue that such actions actually negatively effect a “real” post-shooting sequence of actions, as the practitioner is simply ingraining a useless action that does not require a stimulus:response for perceived success.
Post-shooting sequences and actions are better implemented, assessed, and ingrained in simulation exercises.
I would rather use the time I have on a range to get in “good reps”, and work on technical skills.

When it comes to the Post-Shooting Sequence, position of muzzle is not a fixed rule: it needs to go where it makes the most sense. Sometimes that place is at the thing that needed to be shot, sometimes that place is at a high threat location away from the last thing that got filled in, sometimes its up high or down low based on other factors; its based on the constant flow of information and circumstance, and trying to come up with a “fits all position solution” guarantees little other than at some point it will be the wrong choice.

The uniform answer is that the individual needs to be processing changes and making decisions that lead to taking appropriate actions after each shot, based on the situation and circumstance, with an end-state goal.