Skip to content

The Realities of Combat Marksmanship, Part Two: The Speed V. Accuracy Equation (Or, Mathematics for Marksmen)

September 26, 2013

In a recent article, I opened with the statement, “The importance of precise, well-aimed rifle fire in small-unit combat cannot, and should not, be underestimated.” For anyone who picks up a rifle with the intent of “going in harm’s way,” that statement really should be foremost in their mind throughout any training they do, regardless of where they do that training, when they do that training, and with whom they do that training. If, after all, I’m in a gunfight with some dude 300 meters away (or 30 feet away, the range is really irrelevant at this point), and I simply point my weapon in the air and start blasting rounds out, like a jihadist yelling “Allahu akbar! Inshallah! Inshallah!” I’m not likely to do much in the way of protecting myself. The further away the opponent is, of course, the more critical my ability to aim and fire accurately becomes, because he becomes a relatively more difficult target to hit.


The famous line attributed to Wyatt Earp and all too often parroted by others, with varying degrees of accuracy in the re-telling is, “Fast is fine, but accuracy is final.” There is, in recognition of the opening statement of this and the preceding article, a great deal of Truth in that statement as well. Performing a mag dump is really of questionable value. If none of your rounds impact in the necessary area, then it’s not even of questionable value; it’s of no value at all. Accuracy really is critical. Too often however, that statement becomes nothing more than a cliche.


The problem with a cliche however, is not they’re untrue. It’s that nugget of Truth inherent to the statement that allows it to become a cliche, repeated, ad nauseum, by sycophants who generally don’t realize that they don’t realize the actual meaning behind the original statement. I get called to task, rather often, by readers and others who have completed various training courses (and I’m legitimately not picking on Appleseed in this instance. I’ve heard it from other .mil veterans, and guys that have been to classes with other SOF veterans), for my ongoing advice, when applying suppressive fire, of “shoot as fast as you are able to apply well-aimed fire.” Perhaps the “shoot as fast as you are able” part of that statement just gets their knickers in a twist. I genuinely don’t know.


The reality is however, a single shot, precise enough to punch through the opponent’s amygdala is definitely a final statement to finishing him. If it takes you 5 seconds to manage that shot however; to acquire a solid firing position, line up your sights, control your breathing, and gently squeeze the trigger the it’s full range-of-motion until the shot breaks cleanly, with no disturbance of the sight picture, it’s probably not going to be the “final answer” you think it will be. \


Why not?


Because in 5 seconds, I can dump damned near a whole magazine of 5.56mm M855 into you, at common combative ranges, meaning you’re not going to get that 5 seconds of calm that you apparently need, in order to get the level of accuracy you need, to make your precision shot. That’s the problem. “Fast is fine, but accuracy is final….as long as it arrives in time.”


The speed versus accuracy equation is, as is all too often overlooked, a very, very relative issue. Is a shot that impacts you in the shoulder as lethal as a shot to the upper thoracic cavity or the cerebral cortex? No, of course not, unless you’re a simpering “mangina” who believes that ANY gunshot is lethal, and will blow you backwards through four concrete walls. What if we change the question slightly? “Is a shot that impacts the shoulder as effective at keeping you from shooting me as effective as a shot to the upper thoracic cavity or the cerebral cortex? Probably. Gunshot wounds tend to hurt. How about five shots to the shoulder?


I may need to shoot you again, certainly, but if you’re not shooting at me, effectively (by which we mean, making hits), then I’ve got the time necessary to take that second shot. On the other hand, it can, obviously, be said, that if I take the time to get a shot to the upper thoracic cavity or the cerebral cortex, with the first shot, you won’t need to take that second shot. Let’s go back and look at the previous example. If you’re taking the time to set up that cerebral cortex shot, and I bust a shot into your shoulder, or chest, or leg, or pretty much any other portion of your body, is that, or is that not, going to affect your ability to aim your precision shot?


Some people consider 4MOA to be adequate accuracy. That’s a pretty decent all-around measure. That allows you to hit a 19-inch (across the shoulders) e-type silhouette out to 500 meters, most of the time (I am well aware that 4MOA at 500 meters is 20 inches, not 19. Technically, it’s actually 20.94 inches...) That’s pretty decent. At 100 yards, that’s roughly four inches. That certainly facilitates getting pretty accurate hits. On a stationary, unmoving target.


Personally, my standard for marksmanship with a chrome-lined, 1:7 twist barrel, firing commercial 62-grain M855 “green tip,” is 2MOA. That theoretically allows me to get hits on the aforementioned e-type at 1000 yards. Of course, that’s not accounting for windage and knowing my hold-overs for elevation, or accounting for the transonic effect of the round dropping back below supersonic speeds (which leads to destabilization of the projectile), or even the coriolis effect. At realistic, common combat ranges however, that’s more than adequate. It’s important to understand however, we’re talking about pure marksmanship standards at this point. I’m talking about laying on a nice, groomed range, with a rucksack or sandbag under my rifle’s fore-end, controlling my breathing, and taking my sweet time squeezing the trigger, because the target’s not moving, and it’s not shooting back at me. Accuracy after all, really is relative.


Here’s the catch, so is speed, and the two are relative to necessity, as well as to each other. I can shoot 2MOA or better, taking about 1-2 seconds per shot. If I’m willing to broaden my horizons and accept a 4-6MOA spread, I can put rounds downrange, from the prone position, under field conditions, at a rate-of-fire approaching five rounds per second. From the standing, I can certainly do 8-10MOA at the 4-5 rounds per second rate-of-fire (actually, from the prone, I can consistently ring a 6″ steel plate with five for five, according to the timer, at 5/second, at 100 meters. From the standing, on a C-Zone IDPA steel plate silhouette, and I can pull it off 8-9 times out of ten).


That’s fast, and reasonably impressive, but it’s far from world class. There are guys out there, even in the public eye, who can shoot that accurately, at an even faster rate of fire.


It’s critically important, when shooting at our e-type or IDPA silhouettes and steel plates on the range, to recognize that very, very seldom is the bad guy going to stand there, in the open, at the position of attention, and wait for us to squeeze rounds off at him, at our leisure. Expecting that is the definition of ignorance.


If a dude is behind a rock, shooting at me, at a distance of 100 yards, how much of his body is exposed to me? A shoulder, part of his forearm, and maybe, just maybe the corner of his head? What if that guy can shoot 4MOA, from the prone, at a rate-of-fire approaching five rounds per second? Hell, what if he can only achieve a two rounds per second? Is that going to leave you much time to find your perfect sight picture and delicately squeeze off that shot?


The definition I use of “effective suppressive fire” is “Suppressive fire is fire that is accurate enough and fast enough to keep the enemy more concerned with not getting shot than he is with shooting you.” If that dude shooting 4MOA at 5/second at you, and all he can see, at 100 yards, is the end of your rifle, with your eye behind it, can he hit you? Maybe, maybe not. He can damned sure get close enough though, that you’re going to be more concerned with not getting shot than you are with shooting him, huh? If, every time you lean out to take a shot, there’s five or six rounds zipping close enough that you think a hornet is getting ready to sting you in the eyeball, what’s your reaction going to be? You’re going to duck back behind that rock in a hurry! By the definition above, that IS effective suppressive fire, even if none of the rounds actually hit you.


Speed and accuracy are relative. Ultimately, for your combat-effective marksmanship training, YOU have to decide what is adequate accuracy for you, both for pure marksmanship, and marksmanship at speed, under stress. Then, you have to decide how fast you can achieve that level of accuracy. If you decide that 8MOA from the prone (Honest to God, I’ve seen published standards from militia groups, on the internet, that used a paper plate, at 100 yards, from the prone supported, as their standard of marksmanship) is your standard of accuracy, then how fast do you need to be able to accomplish that?


In the bolt-action days of the Enfield and Springfield, 30 rounds in one minute was the standard, at one point. That’s pretty respectable…from a bolt gun, considering the necessary length of time to conduct a reload with stripper clips, even for a practiced rifleman. With a magazine-fed semi-automatic? That’s a pretty good standard, still, assuming you’re looking for 1-2MOA for accuracy. At the 200 yards that is the outside limit of common, realistic combat ranges, that’s unnecessarily slow. How’s this for heresy? “You do not have to hit the bad guy with every single round you fire. You only have to be close enough to make him worry about getting hit!”


There are caveats to that of course. What if there are non-combatants in the area? Suddenly, you’re going to have to slow down, to ensure that a) the dude you’re shooting at is actually a bad guy, and not a non-combatant ducking for cover because there’s gunfire going off around him, and b) if you do miss the bad guy, that your round isn’t going to go past him and hit a kid walking by. I would argue however, that if you can’t get hits close enough to make the dude duck though, you can’t control your fire adequately to be shooting in a mixed environment like that anyway. Additionally, at that point, we’re no longer talking about just accuracy. We’re also discussing target identification and discrimination, and the real-world application of the safe firearms handling rule.


Past 200 yards, we’re no longer talking about common combat ranges. Not because people can’t shoot that far; we can. Rather, because people aren’t going to stand out there, like an e-type silhouette on a KD range, waiting for you to shoot them. They’re going to move to cover, quickly, and then be shooting back, from behind that cover. If they move, they may very well be crawling. If they’re not crawling, you’d better believe they’re going to be using any available micro-terrain to mask their movements.


So, what is your standard for pure marksmanship? What are your standards for acceptable marksmanship at realistic combat ranges? What are your standards for speed of fire?


Don’t shoot any faster than you’re able; but be able to shoot as fast as you need.



John Mosby

American Redoubt


From → Uncategorized

  1. Jim permalink

    Good article. Question though, where are you finding accurate green tip?

    Most green tip is 4 moa by itself, not counting the rifle or shooter.

    • I run Federal Lake City M855. The fact that it HAS to be at least 4MOA doesn’t mean, in my experience, that it won’t shoot better. I’ve certainly had lot numbers that were 4MOA at best, but in general, I can get a solid 2-3MOA out of it.

  2. M-60 permalink

    “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
    – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

  3. Chris Dunton permalink

    I am confused as to where you will acquire all of your thousands of rounds of ammunition? Also, where will your resupply arrive from? If you were supplied by the military I would understand. Otherwise, luck.

    • M-60 permalink

      Chris. Have you not been buying ammo for years and years? Have you not been caching supplies? OK. If not, then start up at it. It is on you to be able to defend your assigned perimeter as it was the resposibility of the founders to cast their their own ball and keep dry their powder.. Please make this a top priority in the coming days. “To be, or not to be- that is the question”. Just start.

    • panajungla1984 permalink

      LUCK- is when preparedness meets opportunity.

    • At the skill level of applied marksmanship being applied in this country? From pretty much any hillbilly with a gun who picks a fight with me and thinks his ass has time to take the perfect, “one shot, one kill” sight picture.

    • Shorty permalink

      There are multple articles on caching and the development of the auxiliary for support functions on both this site and JM’s old Blogspot site.

    • MacBeth 51 permalink

      And that’s why you want a weapon that uses the same rounds as the enemy.
      Seriously, if your planning on being in a combat situation, preparation would seem to be in order

  4. SpartanMonkey permalink

    JM, you said “You do not have to hit the bad guy with every single round you fire. You only have to be close enough to make him worry about getting hit!”. Is that only in the context of suppressive fire? Would it apply that to a maneuver element assaulting through the OBJ as well as to the SBF element? Seems like the boys assaulting would require a higher and more consistent copper to flesh ratio.

  5. This is a great article. I actually asked you about this and said recently in an after class AAR this is something that needs to be gone into that most people don’t understand, or are being trained to understand(at least from what I can tell). I personally understand it to the core, but it’s just in me I guess, and not something I can articulate as well to someone else. Well, when I do, I can get a little animated, and I’m not sure it’s understood the same as I know it… Anyways, with your gifted ability to communicate I can see this getting across to people. When I read you, I am hearing you, if you know what I mean. This article is an important one.

    People think they are going to win a fight because they know how to manipulate their weapon efficiently and shoot accurately. I think there is a lot more to it than that. Two men, two teams, or whatever can both possess the same ability in use of weapons and even tactics, or heck, one side can have what seems superior and yet they still get their asses handed to them, because the other side is not going to let them use those abilities effectively. That same group of “superior” might comfortably run over many, but not those that know aggression in their soul with the perfect mix of speed and accuracy to make them uncomfortable (and run like the panzies they are!).

    “Suppressive fire is fire that is accurate enough and fast enough to keep the enemy more concerned with not getting shot than he is with shooting you.”

    That is exactly what you told me in response at the class. You are right, and as I said then, I forgot you had said it on the very first day as well.

    Another important example:

    “You do not have to hit the bad guy with every single round you fire. You only have to be close enough to make him worry about getting hit!”


    “If you’re taking the time to set up that cerebral cortex shot, and I bust a shot into your shoulder, or chest, or leg, or pretty much any other portion of your body, is that, or is that not, going to affect your ability to aim your precision shot?”

    The gems are abundant in this article. Gun fighting goes far beyond what you learn handling your weapon and shooting at paper. You have to beat the man at the other end of your barrel. You have to want to kill him more than he wants to kill you, and you may only get one chance. You only die once, after all.

  6. KILLER INSTINCT noun : a VERY STRONG DESIRE to SUCCEED or WIN. An AGGRESSIVE TENACIOUS URGE for DOMINATION in a struggle to attain a set goal. An AGGRESSIVE and RUTHLESS DETERMINATION to win or attain a goal. The NATURAL inclination to do WHATEVER is necessary to succeed (including EXTREME VIOLENCE.

    SELF PRESERVATION noun: : preservation of oneself from DESTRUCTION or HARM. a NATURAL or INSTINCTIVE TENDENCY to ACT so as to preserve one’s own EXISTENCE. Preservation of oneself from DANGER, INJURY, or DEATH. The urge to preserve oneself, regarded as an INSTINCT. Protection of oneself from HARM or DESTRUCTION. The INSTINCT for individual preservation; the innate DESIRE to stay ALIVE.

    Notice the correlation between those two.

    Unless of great distance or not immediate threat, I believe that in a gunfight you must destroy immediately/NOW/ASAP, or you will be the one in fact destroyed! Now obviously, that doesn’t mean firing blindly in a fury everywhere but on your target, when you could have taken an extra half second to acquire the sight picture, and make “good enough”. If someone is going to take all day to get their shot off, or they have to get in a certain position to do so, then they are going to lose that fight when faced with someone with extreme urge to not allow them any of it. There needs to be an emphasis on that.

    It’s true that everyone needs to be able to shoot accurately, but there is a time, place, for what is demanded. Admiring small groups that take time to achieve are not nearly as admirable IMO compared to “good enough” done at lightning speed, because in a real life fight those shots were never going to be fired.

    More JM gems:
    “Don’t shoot any faster than you’re able; but be able to shoot as fast as you need.”

    “If, every time you lean out to take a shot, there’s five or six rounds zipping close enough that you think a hornet is getting ready to sting you in the eyeball, what’s your reaction going to be?”

    “Fast is fine, but accuracy is final….as long as it arrives in time.”

  7. Idaho Celt permalink

    Only hits count. but keeping him from hitting you or yours is just as important.

  8. Bill Harzia permalink

    So that’s my new dry-fire drill – from behind cover, pop out, one thousand “click,” simulate firing a well-aimed round at my dry-fire target, get back behind cover…

  9. Chris permalink

    The Service Rifle 10 ring is about 2 MOA for the 300 yard rapid fire prone stage, and the X is a little under 1 MOA. The competitors fire 10 rounds in 70 seconds (with a mag change) in that stage.

    At Interservice Rifle, winning scores are 200 (all 10s) with around 1/3 to 1/2 being “Xs.” That’s about 1.5 MOA for the top few competitors in the .mil, firing at the rate 6 seconds per round or perhaps a bit faster. They are using match ammo and match rifles.

    You are achieving similar accuracy (sub 2-MOA) with a rate of fire of 1-2 rounds per second (0.75 seconds per round, 8 times faster than the service rifle champs), from a similar position (prone rapid fire).

    So… Why do the service rifle champions suck so much? They have a perfect square range, a match rifle, match ammo, very controlled conditions, and a pre-looped sling.

    You are using ball and a standard 1:7 chrome barrel, but you can be using an optic and a rucksack for prone supported shots (better than a sling). I’ve shot with those guys and they are very competent at what they do. They seem to be “world class” level athletes, certainly a few standard deviations above the mean.

    Am I missing something? Is the argument that the minimum accuracy standard is being able to shoot High Master-level service rifle as an entry level marksmanship standard? After all, high master is far too slow to meet the above described timelines. I get that service rifle is an inexact match to what you’re describing with some artificial limitations, but it is a comparable marksmanship activity with a lot of historical data to look at.

    • You misunderstood me, or I didn’t make my statement clear enough.

      2MOA is a base of accuracy. If I said I can hit 2MOA at 1-2 rounds per second, it was a mis-type. I can generally get a 2MOA shot off every 2 seconds or so, and as I said in the article, and you pointed out above, that’s using a rucksack or other rest (magazine monopod usually), and an optic. The reverse would be ludicrous to claim, at least for me. That’s why I went on to point out that if I’m willing to accept 4-6MOA, I can get a lot more rounds downrange, faster, with adequate accuracy to keep the other dude more concerned with not getting shot than he is with shooting me.

      I don’t have a problem with competitive marksmanship. I have a problem who take the basic fundamentals of competitive marksmanship at an amateur/novice level, and then think they’re good to go, especially when, unlike the competitors you cited, they take a month of Sundays getting into position to pull it off.

      The point was, as I asked at the end of the article…what’s YOUR acceptable level of accuracy? What’s your acceptable rate of fire?

      In all sincerity though, thanks for pointing that out. I can see where the confusion occurred, and since it’s my job to make sure I impart information in a comprehensible manner, I failed.

      • Chris permalink

        Hey John,

        Thanks for the reply. I guess I misinterpreted this:

        “I can shoot 2MOA or better, taking about 1-2 seconds per shot.”

        Sorry, I flipped the ratio around (from 1-2 secs/shot to 1-2 shots/sec). It is still significantly faster than service rifle champions are shooting with similar accuracy. I do see how the prone supported is superior to a sling, and the use of an optic helps significantly too. We’re still talking about very proficient levels of marksmanship.

        As for my personal standard? Well, I figure folks default to their level of training, or worse than their training, under stress. If someone can consistently hit a 400 meter E-silhouette on the square range then they’ll likely be proficient at half that in a dynamic situation, best case.

        Most defensive civilian and LEO situations will likely be within the 200 yard envelope, or less, assuming anything like a “normal” legal regime continues to exist. Given that context, I am pretty happy if people are…

        1) Proficient out to 3-4 MOA targets on a square range…
        2) Have had the opportunity to do some non-square range training (like shoot houses, pop ups, pop-downs in the woods, or force-on-force) and
        3) Can also handle their basic gun manipulation under some sort of time pressure.

        Even if that 3.5 MOA blooms to 7 MOA under pressure we’re talking about effectiveness out to about 300 yards or the BSZ of most rifle setups.

        Is that ideal? No. Is it a realistic 80% solution in a world with limited time and resources? I think so. I’m not making excuses for mediocrity, but there’s an opportunity cost to training, and you hit diminishing returns. You can get someone proficient out to the BSZ of their rifle pretty quickly, and then have them invest their time about something else (comms, medical, community relations, whatever).

        Some people, for whatever reason, will invest that additional effort and energy to get more proficient with firearms. Call them “SDMs” or whatever and encourage it. That’s what Big Army does.

        I teach NRA Basic Rifle and AS courses because pre-existing organizations exist which carry the necessary insurance and provide easy to use venues, provide help with promotions (filling the line), and provide an easy to use curriculum. I also recognize my limitations as a trainer; I’d prefer to teach basic skills which I have mastered than to try to teach advanced topics I am just “proficient” or “familiar” at myself. I’ll teach what I can, and then pass the student on to a higher-level trainer like yourself when they’re ready.

        After the BRM level, I encourage students to then go to a local carbine class to learn the weapons manipulation and new shooting positions beyond the traditional ones, then do a bit of competition locally (3 gun, service rifle, whatever) to test their skills against others under some time pressure, and then to seek out a regional trainer like yourself (or Thunder Ranch, or Gun Site, or a similar regional or national-level facility). I agree 100% that the BRM taught at AS and at other similar programs is a starting point for a longer journey. You have to lay a foundation before you build a house, though.

    • The service rifle champions are shooting from their elbows with iron sights. They are taking so much time because it’s allowed and they want to squeeze every bit of accuracy out of the stage as possible.

      70 seconds for 10 rounds with those kind of accuracy standards from a rest and a magnified optic is forever. 2-3 MOA from m855 is pretty standard as well. I’ve done sub moa with an ACOG and bipod on occasion. Under the same conditions I would have had to purposely try and shoot 4″ groups if that was my intention. It would have also taken longer to do than a smaller group.

  10. Josh A. Kruschke permalink


    Not just under just stress but an Adrenaline Stress Response. A lot of people mistake the stress of hard training for the chaos adrenaline filled mess that is Combat/Violence.

    “So, what is your standard for pure marksmanship? What are your standards for acceptable marksmanship at realistic combat ranges? What are your standards for speed of fire?

    Don’t shoot any faster than you’re able; but be able to shoot as fast as you need.”

    Mosby, I’m going to assume that what you mean by “pure marksmanship” is how well do you shoot with any gun you happen to pickup, and the point of this post is don’t train under perfect/range conditions as if that will be the conditions you will face under combat.

    Mosby the reality of situation might make either part of you last sentence unobtainable.

    Ken Murray in his book “Training at the Speed of Life” estimates that your skills don’t even kick in until your third to fifth combat mission. 

    So, how do you train under realistic conditions of adrenalized stress, that is when your fine motor skills & hand-eye cordination go right out the window? There is a reason new recruits are taught shoot centermass.

    Not just adrenalization, but how many take  Murphy & O’Tool into consideration; by training for things not being perfect or going exactly as you planned?

    A lot of people freeze because the reality doesn’t meet their expectations.

    Mosby, I’ll be happy if they don’t freeze and fire their weapon at all.

    Hell! I’ll be happy if I don’t freeze or shit myself and fire my weapon.


  11. John Rourke permalink

    What we found is that you WILL fight like you train, good bad or ugly, it will be what it is.

    After active duty and deployments I was pretty sick of war, kill, fight, war, kill, fight, war, kill, fight 24/7 and I took up NRA Service Rifle for RECREATION. Worked my way up to the Master Class and can say everything I found useful and practical about the pursuit was realized by the Expert Class.

    It wasn’t wasted time, the level of accuracy is very demanding and the KD range conditions very repeatable. I learned quite a little bit about shooting under ‘conditions’ at the ranges we found relevant in combat. It was a good education and a good way to unwind. Not really much good for CQB obviously but it will bring game to your 200-600 yard efforts. Most folks suffer past battle sight zero with the shooting conditions IE the wind. These days we have cheap range finders to determinate range and scopes to compensate, but building skill doping the wind requires experience shooting at full distance and there really isn’t a substitute.

    While it’s pretty easy to beat the plate carrier and dismiss Service Rifle shooters, fact is they are pretty fine rifleman from a ‘pure’ marksmanship standpoint.

  12. It’s probably most realistic that if we are to find ourselves in a fight we didn’t start, or for that matter the ones we do initiate as well, that it will be violence of action (to use aggressiveness to dominate, intimidate, and gain control) needed to win. More so will it be dire at more common combat ranges…

    If the mindset is “I might shit my pants and freeze”, then that needs to be wiped off the plate of possibilities. That can’t be an option because it leads to certain death.

    I’m not a believer of the loss of fine motor skills, or of decreasing performance under dire need to survive either. You should actually perform at your highest when forced to, rather than when it’s not as seriously needed. Records are set under the most extreme pressure.

    I don’t know how you can really get the full effect of being “adrenalinized” and performing under that condition. It’s not really possible to replicate the sheer reality of life and death circumstances without being absolutely real.

    In terms of practicing for cqb combat, force on force is the best, and it will very importantly expose the weakness of “freaking out” and the strength of “aggression” in its need for domination. Timed shooting matches such as IDPA (also good for practicing the use of cover), Tac carbine/rifle, and multi-gun can give a slight raise to the need to perform under stress. Especially if the stage is more complicated involving various ranges, movement, rapid targets requiring your head on a swivel, and the more running the better as well. Straight up head to head competition is also good, especially if you are required to perform your best to win or “survive”.

    Training with Mosby is something everyone should make happen. As his blog is a wealth of knowledge, he will overwhelm you the same in person. He has a different way of teaching, and a good one at that. The reasoning behind his class is of serious difference than that of the more common canned commercial politically correct one you will get elsewhere, if you know what I mean. The way he forces his students to engage repeatedly with their own questions in each class is something that will make each class unique and further educating for everyone involved. You get more than you sign up for per se.

    • John Rourke permalink

      This will be known as a ‘Golden Era’ of personal firearms and tactics training. Many, many qualified instructors are out there teaching the cumulative knowledge of the New Modern Technique.
      All one has to do is pick his favorite ‘Personality’ and Lord knows there’s
      one to suit all taste.

  13. Reblogged this on DVC Prepper and commented:
    Excellent summary of how fast and accurate you need to be. Most error on the side of accuracy IME.

  14. Accurate suppressive fire is the ideal standard. Either kill or keep the peckers head down while the support team manuevers in a flanking procedure to destroy the target.

  15. It is a ggod article for a very knoweage instructor– the thing is the shooter knows he is going to shoot you and to defend is one step behind the eight ball. its m uch eaier to be the agressor. I mean all of th suddun thier is a crash at your back door two guys in masks charge in. I goota over come pissn my pants fidng thr damn gun and firing. No warning no talk jus t shoot the dudes. Its tough to ov er come brain lag, and traing my muscels to act when my brain isn’t. That fight or fligh baci anumal instinct can mess you up. Keeping a clam while lead is comming your way no thats not so easy.

  16. The thing is the higher your level of disbilty the more likey you are to be a target in this drug infested nation we live in. One has to develop a warrior mentality– or die

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Two From Mosby | Western Rifle Shooters Association

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: