A sample oak of square range targets with face and multiple threat overlays from ID Target Systems.

We have come a long way since the B-27 target, a staple used in law enforcement qualifications since what seems like the beginning of time. Fortunately, we have evolved past that target that features unrealistic targeting zones that reinforce bad habits in shot placement. Before I go any further, I feel the need to mention that I use different targets for different goals. For building specific technical skills, I will use simple targets such as a bullseye, round or square plates, etc., These targets aren’t designed to simulate a tactical application, but rather, evaluate whether or not I meet a particular accuracy standard. For “tactical” type training, I prefer targets that feature scoring zones located in realistic areas such as the ocular cavity or high thoracic chest. No more shooting at the navel to get 10 points. Here, we will be discussing targets for tactical type training. Continue reading →

I’ve been following Mike Pannone through his writings and videos on the Internet for quite some time now. I enjoy his no-nonsense, performance based approach to training. His drills are challenging and rooted in reality. I particularly like his 15 in 10 Drill, which pushes the limits of speed while keeping a tight accuracy standard. This past SHOT Show, I ran into Mike in one of the hallways and had a nice chat with him. While this was the first time we had met in person, I felt like we were chatting like two old shooting buddies. His real world experience is significant (look it up), but Mike also has a solid grasp of the industry, and therefore understands the pros and cons of each weapon system. Hilton recently attended Mike’s Covert Carry Class and keeps telling me how I have missed out by not yet taking the opportunity to get on the range with Mike. Continue reading →

At the end of part one, I suggested a solo intervenor’s mission is driven by two goals: (1) Interrupting, containing, and deactivating the active killer, and; (2) communicating and identifying oneself as the “good guy” so victims, witnesses, and responding LEOs do not mistake an intervenor (you) for the active killer.  I didn’t suggest which of the two was more important.   That depends on the intervenor’s own analysis of the SHOULD and MUST.  I also purposely failed to mention something obvious: Time spent on the second goal delays implementation of the first, thereby diminishing the chance of an earlier, more lives saved intervention. Continue reading →

This post started out in draft (many months ago) as a review of the Panteao Productions video by Paul Howe, “Civilian Response To Active Shooters.”  (Click on the image to read some of Paul Howe’s background).

        I was a bit uncomfortable some might think I had strayed from my lane as I have no military combat experience, and neither my training nor my life or death experiences resemble Paul Howe’s.  Thus, I changed this post to pose and (hopefully) answer the title question. I think a better term to describe the dynamic incidents addressed is “active killer,” so I use that term instead of the universally used term “active shooter.”

I know Paul Howe only by reputation, his videos, and the material he and others have posted on the internet about his classes and training facility, CSAT.  If I had a training “bucket list,”  a week or two at CSAT would be on it.  Real operators I know respect him, his abilities, and doctrine.  Paul’s video provides basic insight into civilian mindset, gear, and tactics appropriate to intervene in an active killer incident.  Obviously, a safer intervention tactic would be simply to have Paul Howe with you and let him do the heavy lifting.  You would stay out of the fight, help with the evacuation of innocents, and provide direction to sworn first responders (most importantly, describing the armed and qualified civilian responder who already entered and was in response mode).  Unless you are Mrs. Paul Howe, that’s fantasy. Continue reading →