I honestly don't get what is so difficult about the scoring here.  Its not like a football team is required to pass/run a certain amount of times or when you have to kick or go for it of 4th down.  There are set guidelines that you must abide by and as long as you stay within the provided parameters, it is up to you how you want to make use of your shots/movement.  No one ever questions a baseball game or football game despite the fact that it isn't standardized.  Gymnastics competitions are full of completely different routines but they are still judged and there is still a winner.  Its really not all that mind boggling.  In your competition how are you supposed to judge someone who took all of there shots from a standing position vs someone who was sitting on their ass... it isn't a fair comparison at all but if someone wants to shoot from a less stable position and wants to win, it is their own damn fault for using such a shitty strategy.

And I don't see why this is so hard for some to grasp.  A couple of us get it.

Scoring isn't the problem.  It can be scored.  The scores will be relevant to the individual shooter but only if the shooter shoots exactly the same setup every time.  However, unless every shooter shoots exactly the same plan the score will be irrelevant due to too many variables.  If you don't see that clearly, I don't know what else to say.  Study the design of Army cof's and you will start to get it.  It is actually way more difficult to set up a cof useful for comparing shooters than it seems. Put a different way, it is easy to set up a cof, easy to set up a very simple "test" but much harder to incorporate some of the goals of this cof in a scorable and comparable exercise.

When we started setting up cof's on my place I fell into the same exact trap that lies here.  Initially on some it became pretty obvious we we weren't "testing" anything between shooters.  Then as we got the grasp of the principles, the things fell into place.

This is a training program, not a plan to compare shooters {as are the other Challenges on arfcom}.  If the former is the goal, all is well.  If the latter is the goal, it fails. Think of this as the textbook.  But it is not the test.  If you want to learn some stuff, it is great.  If you want to test to a standard or merely test the skills of various shooters and compare them, it does not do that.

Again, to repeat {and I'll bow out now because I've said it over and over} this is a training program, not a cof that can be used to compare shooters.  That's all.  I am not making a value judgement, just a statement of fact.  It may be very effective for building skills for individuals, but doesn't allow legitimate scoring comparisons between shooters.

Cheers to all!  

ETA:  Augee's modifications are taking it generally in the direction that will lend it to making good comparisons, but it is not there yet.

word to the wise.

Bring something dark to go behind your white paper

bring water with you.
first run

slick is more fun than with gear

pistol ar 10.5 barrel
aimpoint t1 4 moa
stock trigger

30
unfired shots (0 @+2 ea) +0
30
rifle hits (25 @ 1 ea)-24
6
I missed 6 times...downer (7 @3 pts ea) +18
24
pistols are stupid

total 24
I had a really hard time centering up the aimpoint on the white paper.  I would suggest putting a cardboard box or something like that behind it for contrast.

I began regretting my lack of water at about this point.

second run in the long rifle full kit category.  

I don't believe this time I will pull the time on the video and see whats up

Rifle is noveske 13.7 with be meyers pinned and welded full length 16 inch.
aimpoint t1 2moa
geissele sde
lwrc ultra comp stock

30
unfired shots (2 @+2 ea) +4
34
rifle hits (21 @ 1 ea)-21
13
I missed 7 times...downer (7 @3 pts ea) +21
34
pistols are stupid
total 34
6 of the 7 misses were within an inch of the paper...Probably should have looked at zero before hand.
putting the video together now should be out tonight if I have time.  I think my 3-5s were too fast but it is what it is.

Nick, did you use a barrier?

barriers and pistols are beneath me.

Excuse me Mr. Forney, you in fact did use a pistol. It was just a really long one.

truth I guess.  I would rather the event was a simple 25 yard run to each one.  I realize watching videos of myself that I have been enjoying beer too much while sitting on my ass in college.  Oh well.  The kit one is done and uploading I felt like stamped shit doing that which is pretty sad considering it is just a few hundred yards of running.

the pistol one shows off my man boobs quite nicely thanks to the cool camera angle hooked to the rifle.  I should use the cameras more often I think.  Not because I am destined to be the next you tube superstar but because I noticed fumbles in reloads or in reaching for mags that I had no recollection of.  

I forgot what the deal was on running back I thought you had to drop and shoot 5 for some reason so I did.  I don't really care I didn't feel like thinking about other stuff I just dropped and laid down a base of fire then began my movements.  This is why I would rather do 100 75 50 25 with shooting at each spot I think it is a better bench mark.  IMT is pretty subjective to the enemy actually having a reaction time as well as utilization of the terrain.  Off of the mowed lane I was on I would have to shoot from the knee and that is concealment at best.

I don't think the barrier should have any part of this.  Barrier drills are a completely different thing.  I beat the shit out of vtac drills but they are a different kind of beast.

Question:  The updated COF has the final shooting engagement at 15yds, but then you still have to advance to 5yd to "check that they are down" but no more shooting until the "counter attack" happens again when you get to 100yd, correct?  Or does "advance on target" also mean shoot target while moving to it or once you get there?  Not sure about this verbiage, and just wanted to clarify it a bit more.  Thanks.

I don't know what augee wanted but I was pretty much always out of rounds then based on my desire to shoot after my reload.  When I got past the 25 I stopped bounding and fired on the target while moving forward.

Im sure I will have penalties for days but such is life.
second run with kit

Can't get the video to load.  Says it is duplicate {??}

try it now.
I liked the basic training version where you just have loaded magazines and shoot pop ups and don't have to watch your man boobs bounce around.

Looked good man... thats pretty much how i envisioned it

Works fine.

I'll try this tomorrow and see if I can get my "Tough" camera to video the thing.  Wife and her android are out of town till Friday.  

I don't have the necessary kit so maybe Ill do it with my ski gear and rucksack or something.

Oh, and Nick, you need a bayonet.

I was wasting my time and trips down range for that camera in the back as well as trying some new software junk.  I should have just use the helmet cam or the rifle mount thing.  I guess you live and you learn.  I have  a bayo.  If I do this again I will use my m16a4 type gun.

I don't, but I do have a bolo knife and if that target gets too close and I've run dry, I'm gonna use it.  

That looked good to me.

There should be a separate 10rd mag for the final 10m. Once you get to the 10m line you engage while walking forward.

I was thinking that exact same thought as I was watching the end of Nick's vid.

Is it cheating if an actual Infantryman does this? Cause I might!

It's required.

You are supposed to show us all how it's done.

yea man.  it is basically cheating for an infantryman to do it.

Wow the crowd is pretty uptight here.

Oh wow... this pic must have been way back in the day

I think its going to be interesting to see how all the military trained guys run it vs civ guys.  nick's run did look pretty textbook ... at least to someone who has no idea what exactly would be in that "textbook"

Haven't timed it - but looks pretty close to the intent to me!  



Barrier I left optional because "what the hell," some people wanted, some people didn't.  

Got my range lined up, today, too.  

More in a moment...

~Augee

haha ouch.  Afraid I got out only 2 years ago.  In reality there are few times we use this with the type of fight we are in today.  We might lay some support by fire while moving but really we have a combat load.  210 rounds at minimum goes a lot further than 30 over 3 mags does.  Accuracy is nice but suppression is what is important.  

The turning around and running back at the end feels really strange.  In reality you would stop your bound dump rounds into bodies and then begin your searches with a nice security posture.  I think the last time I did an IMT like that would have been in Alaska in 2006 or so.  


With some of the urban or mountain side fighting we have done our enemies have learned that they need to attack and be able to maneuver away faster than we can move forward.  They also help set up buffers with us by placing hasty explosives along our likely avenues of approach.  So a pretty standard long ambush in Afghanistan was a machine gun team with some rpg's would set up in a dry river bed 600 yards from where we would be coming through.  They would open up and then escape down the river bed.  You can't easily IMT 600 yards and you are wearing all the kit while they likely have motorcycles.  Best bet is often a 60mm round placed in the likely escape route.  

xtreme762 I don't think anyone was being hard on you just joking around.

Re-reading the OP now. Maybe I can get out this weekend and give it a go.

This is how this (way-out-of-shape) Civi did it this afternoon:

Some of the previous posts talked about being out of shape.  Well, I fit right in that category.  I was expecting to be a bit winded, but this COF was almost puke-inducing!  I really need to work on my physical fitness!!!  Now that being said, before my first run, I did do a few dry test runs, trying to figure out how many bounds I would need to take to get to the end of the range and which camera setup would work best: smart phone in a pocket on my chest rig, or mounted back at the 100yd line the whole time.  The chest rig mount was a bust.  And then my first attempt was aborted (after I had run down and back) due to me forgetting my ear pro  I guess with all the anticipation and trying not to forget anything about the COF, I forgot my ear pro.  It didn't take long to learn that lesson.

I made two runs. After my aborted 1st "pre"-attempt, I later realized while reviewing the video that I only loaded up 29rds instead of the required 30rds.  Thus the chicken scratches on the target, which reflect this.

Here is a link to the 1st attempt.  You can really see how winded and out of shape I am, again, by how I'm stumbling around.  Augee, is this what you were wanting?

1st Attempt

Target #1


And the second attempt.  This run was smoother, I think, but my shooting wasn't as accurate.  And I ran with a full thirty rounds this time.

2nd Attempt

Target #2


So, with a better time, but a worse target, which is the better run?

Rifle:
Colt M4A1 HB as base rifle
Changed parts to:
-barrel is now a Colt 14.5 SOCOM profile with pinned/welded KAC NT4 flash hider (with spacer to get it over 16" total)
-stock is LMT SOPMOD
-BUIS is KAC 300m
-Pistol grip is Ergo Suregrip ambi
-Charging handle is PRI Gasbuster
-Optic is Trijicon TA01NSN with piggyback J-Point 8MOA dot
-Light is Surefire M952V (maybe not true spec here for a block 1 though)
-Sling mounts are CQD front and back
-Sling is BFG padded VCAS

Here she is:



Confession:  the 4-position receiver extension tube that Colts come with did not allow me to get the proper eye relief and the 1st position out, so I drilled another hole to allow it to collapse just a bit more so it can give me the proper eye relief.  So now it's a custom 5-position tube.

And since were showing off our ranges, here's a pic of mine from about 25yd to the target looking back towards the benches:

Thank you!

This gets to the point I was trying to make earlier.

This exercise is not truly reflective of anything but Augee's personal idea.  That's NOT bad.  The 1MOA Challenge was nothing but that OP's personal idea and the SHTF was nothing but my personal idea.  Only difference is they were scorable and comparable between shooters and this one so far isn't.

So since this actually does not reflect reality, altering it a bit to standardize it to be able to make comparisons does not really detract anything substantial.

I still vote for a truly scorable and comparable exercise.

So now we have a few guys headed out to do...something...none of which is really comparable to anything else.

So maybe we can all do something different on purpose, and then let Augee sift thru it, pick out the best parts and set up a truly scorable and comparable exercise.  Otherwise it is just a bunch of guys running around shooting and posting videos on the internet, as if that hasn't been done before...

You're not going to be able to accurately reflect reality unles you have a legit MOUT site or massive range with ruble and shit everywhere.

It simulates reality in that you have to do the basics while winded and in gear. Running, getting up and down in gear and shooting while exhausted all simulate reality. This is just laid out in such a way people will actually be able to do it.

The final bound may be no closer than 15 yards, but you may continue firing on the target beyond 15 yards, and are encouraged/expected to.  

~Augee

If you budget your rounds correctly... that could be exactly what you have.  

~Augee

You aren't getting it.

No method of scoring is going to make sense if you do 50 pushups and I do 20 pullups and then we "compare" the results.  That is what is going to happen if the course isn't standardized. Choosing how far you want to bound and how many shots you want to take from each position is nice, but if everybody is choosing differently it results in a meaningless comparison.  If that is actually the desired goal then none of us have any reason to post results at all.  Everybody might as well run their own cof because comparing theirs to somebody else's proves nothing and means nothing.

However, if we all run it "our way" and Augee picks and chooses what he wants from everybody's experimental run, then combines and standardizes, THEN can we have a meaningful challenge that will compare skill levels between shooters.

It's that simple.

Haha come on with all the negativity man!!!  If Augee says he can score it let him score his challenge.  I'll go shoot yours tomorrow so you have something to do .  If he finds out he can't do it, he will change it.  

I agree with all of this.

Notwithstanding the officerized stump speech about core competencies and conventional Skill Level 1 and METL tasks and "crawl, walk, run," and how our Army's spent too much time in a COIN environment, how we've become too heavy, with too much of an emphasis on Force Protection than maneuver, etc. - which I'm sure would have everyone's rapt attention ; your points are all very good ones.  

I would say, if nothing else, though - that's it's a positive thing that running back to the 100 yard line "feels weird" to you, a trained infantryman - but then again, "React To Counter-Attack" is also a "check the block" task for Actions On, and it gives me an excuse to wring an extra 100 yard sprint out of everybody.  

Ideally the COF would be a 200 yard range with steel at the far end so that you hit LOA and then engaged the counter-attack, but just from unscientific observation, it seemed to me that going beyond 100 yards would automatically exclude a lot more people than trying to stay at 100 yards, and also, I wanted to retain a single target for scoring purposes as well.  

[b]Meanwhile, and again - while I have not yet scored it, in part due to the fact that the "finalized" COF is continuing to evolve - just from watching the nickforney's videos, his "run" pretty much meets the intent.  Bounding movements, closing with the enemy, and engaging a counter-attack."  It really is that simple, as far as my "intent" goes.  

Also, "fuck eye-pro."  

~Augee

Ha!!  

No, no...

I'll shoot YOURS and you shoot MINE or...oh, whatever....

Seriously, shoot "it" and I'll shoot "it" and then we'll toss the results in the hat w/ Nick's and others' and let Augee pick out what he wants to keep.

I think the whole point is that every submission will be different.  Yet the scoring system Augee has set up is designed in a way to accommodate that.  That's the whole point here--to allow for variations and individuality, within the framework of the rules he has set up.

EVR -

While I genuinely appreciate your input thus far - and in terms of simplicity for scoring and executing the COF in this format, you may very well be correct; I think that there is an element to this that you are still not getting.  

As the scoring rubric and COF continue to simplify - on the one hand, it is going the direction you, and others have predicted, and in some ways, basically becoming a multi-gun stage in the form of an online competition.  If that becomes the inevitable conclusion, then it is what it is - it still meets the "online, video based competition" component.  

Yet - while the scoring continues to involve - I think part of what you're not getting is the fact that this is not a marksmanship challenge.  

I think that you are wrong in the thought that there is no basis for comparison - in the very simplest of senses -

This is a time challenge to see who can close with and destroy the enemy the fastest.  

Each shooter must choose their "way" of running the COF to match both their own skill level and fitness level - and they must have a "plan" before they execute it.  That plan is what we are comparing.  Whose plan works better and why?  If I give them positions and round counts, then there's nothing to plan, and thus, nothing to compare.  

FWIW - while I would be the first to admit that I have more to learn about it - I am quite familiar with exercise design - exercise design is not the issue here -

Some of the issues here are matching resources to task, widely disparate experience levels and frames of reference with little to no established base-line to work with, and... let's be honest - having to design an exercise with elective, nor directed participation - and I will tell you this - designing an internet forum exercise is a lot different than designing an Army exercise.  

While nickforney's points about reality-versus exercise are all very true and very valid - it is extremely difficult -even with the resources of the military to do a one-for-one simulation that is even moderately accurate to reality - and even more difficult to do in this venue with these sorts of resourcing requirements (though I would pay money to OC, or even watch an ARFCOM NTC rotation ).

This kind of IMT is rare today, because it is exceedingly simple and basic - and reality tends to be more complex - however - it is still a basic building block of tactics, and, while I may suffer from some self-serving bias - does still reflect something more than just a "lets watch videos of ourselves running around shooting guns!" and last I checked at least (though who knows what the hell they teach them these days) IMT was still a component of basic combat training that you need to learn before you move on to more complex tasks.  

This task/exercise/COF tests your ability to:

Move from "far" away from the enemy to close to the enemy (i.e. close with and destroy), while attempting to limit your amount of exposure time to getting shot by the enemy - both by firing at them to force them to keep their heads down, and by moving in a way which makes it difficult for the enemy to zero their sights to you.  

Moreover - the exercise represents a fluid environment where a person must "think on their feet," and observe, orient, decide, and act using limited resources (amount of ammunition allotted) to accomplish a simple goal (put holes in a target).  

A participant, when contemplating executing the course of fire must evaluate the course of fire, and make an honest assessment about their skill level, and level of physical fitness, and create a plan to execute it.

The participant then begins the course of fire - and more often than not, learns that "no plan survives first contact" - and that they must adjust what they are doing in order to accomplish the task, based on the immediate feedback they are receiving.  

This challenge is, at least intended to test those things, along with hopefully be both fun, and physically challenging.  That is what shooters are comparing against one another, though.  And because we live in a world where results matter more than method - the scoring is based on the end result of both the participant's pre-planning, and how well they adjust to the situation.  

Ideally, if you have the best plan initially - that's the most realistic to the task, conditions, and standards -

Are able to observe, orient, decide, and act more quickly than anyone else -

Are a skilled marksman -

And are in the best physical shape -

Your score should reflect all of these things.  If you are stronger in one than another - again - your score should reflect this.  If you are weak in them all - again - your score will reflect.  Those things are the basis for comparison.  To be "the best," you must be the best in all dimensions, not just one or two.  

"Standardized items" -

A fixed distance which you must travel

Fixed resources with which to accomplish the task (amount of ammunition)

Time

Time during which you are "allowed" to be exposed


The target tests whether or not you accomplished the task (suppressing and destroying the enemy)

Your elapsed time tests the overall time it took you (not unlike many shooting challenges)

Your Exposure Time tests the amount of time during which you could have potentially gotten shot  


These things are then all added together - and it is that combined score which is combined.  

To take your "example" - if I said - the point of this exercise is to get from a resting heartrate to a target exercising heartrate as fast as possible - and you do 50 pushups, and I do 20 pullups - the scoring method that makes sense for the result is "how long did it take."

When we "compare" the results, if you won - I consider if maybe your method of 50 pushups is a more effective method to reach the target heartrate - or that maybe what I need to do is to do a combination of your technique and my technique to produce the result before you do the next time around.  

~Augee

Meanwhile -

Despite the inevitable chorus of "I told you so"s that this is bound to trigger -

I am dropping "Defilate Time" from the scoring rubric altogether.  

As of now, the other requirements remain the same -

You must fire on EVERY bound.  

An one engagement must be a MINIMUM of 3 rounds in each distance bracket.  

Meaning if you can bound 25 yards at a time, and want to fire 10 rounds, and you've budgeted for it - you may.  Or, if you need to break it into 3 bounds, you can shoot 3 - 2 -1 or whatever combination you want - as long as ONE of those engagements is 3 rounds or more.  

Defilade Time was intended to provide a penalty for sticking around in one spot for too long - and to discourage "slow fire" from the prone - but that time will still be reflected in your elapsed time - there's just not a 10::1 second penalty any longer, as it seems to be adding to confusion more than it is helping.  

Your Exposure Time will still be counted and ADDED to your total Elapsed Time, with penalties still in place for going over 5 seconds.

Those are tonight's changes.  

Thanks again everyone for all the input, and for everyone that's done trial runs already!  

~Augee

Augee, I do get it.  You have made it clear and done in the past a good job of explaining.  I've tried to be nice but maybe I need to be blunt.  

What you are missing is what you actually intimate above.  It IS headed in the direction I said it would {and should} because in a little bit of time if guys shoot it, they will game it until it standardizes itself.  If that is your intent, bravo.  If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

But I don't want to make a negative thing about it at all.  This thing has the potential to be a fun exercise.  It is not a bad thing and I don't want to sound negative at all.  I just know what I know and so far I've been right.

thorneje was right to toss a rock at me for sounding negative {I don't mean to} but I am really not trying to rain on your parade.  I'm just sayin' you can speed up the process w/o losing any value to the exercise because in the end it is going to wind up standardized anyway, IF guys shoot it at all.  That's all.

You can save the most important components and shake off the least and come up with a challenge that is scorable, comparable and fun.  

NOW THERE'S THE SPIRIT. {It is heading ever-so-steadily to a simplified and standardized form, isn't it...? ;) }

And just so you can claim to be right, because you are.........................

"I told you so"!!  

{Just stickin' ya in the ribs.  I like this thing!  }

There are not more than about two or three ways that I "think" are the "best" way to shoot this course that the penalties are intended to "guide" the shooter into making the "right" decisions.  At the same time - I might be totally wrong about those ways - and someone may come up with an even better way I hadn't thought of.  

This is almost always the case with any problem - that while there might be an unlimited number of potential ways to tackle it - there are actually only a couple really "good" ways - often, those good ways end up becoming "doctrine."  

I have no problem with the idea that, and would not be discouraged if participants eventually developed "doctrine" to tackle this course of fire.

If you view this in part, as a starting point to being able to discuss basic tactics - most people ultimately learn better by doing and making mistakes than by being told what the best way to do something is without any example, explanation, or opportunity to learn for themselves.  

Sometimes, this is the only option available.  But I'm hoping not in this case.  

Probably, you're right - a "doctrine" for the COF will develop - and people will post about it, and say - well, this way is better to do it because of this - and that's why I did a better job of accomplishing the task (got a better score) than you did.  

Probably most people will give it a try the "doctrinal" way first, which is pretty natural.  Some will be satisfied with that.  

Some will think that "well, maybe if I did it this way..." and they'll try it.  Either they'll be successful - and it will either a) be determined to be a fluke because of something unique about that person or situation - or b) doctrine will shift based on the fact that someone came up with a new, better way of doing things.  

And while there might one day be a 100% efficient solution, without any room for improvement - almost inevitably - people will continue trying.  And they will meet my intent, because they will - given a certain set of tasks, conditions, and standards, and a set limit on resources - try to plan a way to achieve the mission, then execute that plan - adjusting where and when needed to meet the intent if and when the plan fails.  

The people who will just do what the person ahead of them said the best way to do it was - they're not wrong - people learn, follow, and teach doctrine - and generally, it works well enough - until it doesn't, then it changes.  

I'm fine with their being a "doctrine" to this challenge - and even for there to be a "standardized" methodology by which the majority of people end up tackling it.  What I won't do is force people to conform to the doctrine, so long as they conform to the constraints that I have set, when all I want to happen is for the mission to be completed.  

~Augee

We are on the same page, because with every change you make the thing becomes more and more simplified and standardized. That is what I said would happen and it is.  It will take just a few more clarifications and you will have a standardized cof that can be scored and used to compare shooters.  By the way, if you "do the math", there is a "best" way to complete the shooting portion and still meet the rules requirements...

As I understand it now, the barrier and pistol are both no longer to be used, correct, or do you still want feedback/trial runs with those?

While using buddy rushing is uncommon and not used much, I have in fact had the pleasure(asshole clenching, ohshittheyreshootingatmerunrunrun! feeling) to buddy rush across a huge open field that had no cover whatsoever besides the sneaker high lines of dirt used by famers to irrigate parts of their fields. I won't tell you the distance because one I can't remember accurately, and two it might be unbelievable. Let's just say it was farther than 200meters. And the best part of it all? It worked. No one died or was even hit.

 


ETA: this was in Afghanistan, YMMV


 

I would have to disagree -

While each change has made the COF simpler, I think the net result has been to make it less standardized.  

Previously there were very rigid rules about how much time you could hide, how much you could shoot for, and how much time you could move - which is a fairly heavy level of standardization considering that the primary scoring element of the challenge is time, with shooting being, in a way, a "pass/fail" arbiter, with the time being conducted according to a very standardized cadence.  The changes have made the time scoring and penalties more fluid in and that you're no longer as tied to specific time limits for certain actions - save for the actual 3-5 second bound itself.  

In making the COF simpler, however, what the changes have done is made the challenge easier - both the execute and to score - and the changes have been made for a variety of reasons - but never to "standardize."  

If the result of making it simpler and easier so more people can understand it and more people will participate has been to make a "best" way more obvious, then I'm okay with that, but structurally, there's much more flexibility than the original form of the challenge.  

And yes, while mathematically there might be a "best" way to do it - a) will that translate to reality?  b) the "best" way is only the best, until someone comes along and does it better.  

Pistol and barrier are still optional.  Use them if they think they'll help.  

I won't hesitate to say that chances are, and I've tried to structure the exercise in such a way that they're not going to make much of a difference unless you have a stoppage/fumble/juggle a magazine in a reload/run out of ammunition - and likely have a higher chance of messing you up than helping you - but the point is, that you have that option - and it serves the "thinking on your feet" and "when the plan goes wrong" intents.  When you've inserted your 5 round magazine when you thought you were inserting your 10 rounder at 7 yards, what do you do?  Stop shooting and turn tail?  Or do you find a way, any way, to keep rounds going down range?  

In fairness - perhaps the "right" thing to do might not be the best for your score - but all that's riding on this is bragging rights and a KAC rail panel, and maybe a T-shirt.  But everyone will see your video - and see you react, and act decisively when the situation requires.

Or - maybe you happen to shoot like Jerry Miculek and know it - and you're just that good that you can use it to your advantage.  That's simply pre-planning and realistic evaluation of your capabilities, and taking advantage of them - which you should be considering in a "tactical" situation.   Here's a T-shirt.    

I think you're right, and I have always thought that a "standardized" way will probably make itself apparent pretty quickly.  But I also think that you're underestimating people's creativity in finding a different way that may not work for everyone - but that will work for them.  

The COF is completely flexible to that - and the rules that there are exist only to attempt to ensure that you don't violate tactical principles in trying to find the best way for you to complete the mission - i.e. cause yourself to get killed.  There's no cheating in a gunfight - only winners and losers, and the COF, equipment parameters, and rules/penalties are intended to reflect that.  The divisions are intended only to create a baseline metric for fair comparison - no need to have someone wearing full body armor and an M16A4 clone compete with someone wearing a T-shirt and jeans, and carrying an SBR in an athletic competition.  But the tools you select (optics, method of carrying magazines, etc.) are all part of your matching resources and assets to the mission.  

The "competition" aspect is intended only to utilize people's innate competitive spirit to get them to develop and train on some very very basic skills.  Hopefully I'm accomplishing that - but that's what I want feedback on - and have gotten, because I'm sure it's not perfect.  

~Augee

This last post of yours is plagued with internal disagreements and illogical statements.  I'm going to leave it alone.  I don't think we need to "argue" it any more {tho I'd be happy to }

I say let's just shoot it and see where it goes.  Or continues to go as the case may be. Prediction; if you stay as open as you are to adjusting the rules, I think what you end up with will be great and will meet the need for both standardization and comparable scoring {at least as close as it can, taking into consideration the variable terrain upon which the course might be run}.



Not related to the rules, but I still think the end result should be posted in GD in order to get you the most exposure.

SHTF competition link?

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1744566_OFFICIAL_SHTF_Challenge_Redux__Allowable_target_updated.html

It's open to all rifle types now.

I didn't take it that way. I figured there were a couple of us in here anyhow.



So far from reading through. I think you're the only person here that actually gives a shit about your opinion!

Instead of picking Augee's thread/challenge apart because YOU don't like the way it's set up. Why don't you shut the fuck up, shoot it, or go the fuck away! Your bullshit SHTF "challenge" doesn't compare to this, and never will.

Here's an idea; you should go fix the massive loopholes in your shit before calling someone elses out!

ETA: I understand giving ideas, and some input. But trying to get Augee to completely change his challenge to suit YOUR needs is a different story.

Wow.  Somebody rolled outta the bunk on the wrong side...

I hope you are on blood pressure meds cuz if you don't calm down you are gonna blow a vein in your head.

I actually think Augee and I have had a good back and forth and frankly, I think he understands my points even if we don't agree 100%.

It's a DISCUSSION, GUY, A BACK-AND-FORTH. And his thing here is a work in progress and he asked for input. When he gets it ironed out then he'll post the thing up as a Challenge and it'll be good.  In the meantime, it's up for grabs just as he has said over and over. And tho Augee might not agree with me on every aspect of my assessment he has discussed it like a man, not like a 4 year old like someone else.............  So take a deep breath, take a lesson in how to discuss an issue and calm down.  

You need to work on a sense of humor, it's good for you...and as for the "SHTF Challenge" is a simple shooting test by the way.  Get it?  Maybe not...  Let me help you...

The TITLE is a total satire on the "SHTF" BS that gets tossed around on this and many other forums by goofballs who like to drum around on the computer and dream of the apocalypse.  It's a JOKE, dude.  

It is shooting 15 shots at a piece of paper.  Go do it and have some fun and give your veins a rest.  {Look up Molon's archived Grapefruit Challenge, too.  Another simple shooting test.  Have at them both!}

Seriously, we are among friends here.  We may disagree but there is no need for mouth frothing.  

ETA:  Apologies to all if I sound like I am being belligerent or something, but an opinion held lightly isn't worth holding at all, and I think this thing has legs.  Certainly it is the only one of its kind I've seen on arfcom and I would not be posting if I didn't support what Augee is doing here.

OK fellows.

First Attempt;

Augee;  Concept is great.  It is a lot of fun to shoot.  I keep in pretty good shape but am coming off a 6 week recovery from a stress injury of my left ankle and foot but it didn't bother me too much.  I am going to be 52 in a little over a month and have permanent nerve damage in my neck and shooting shoulder so I'm just plain glad to be able to do it at all!  

To assist you in the design, I "gamed" it as best as I could.  I tried to keep strictly to the rules but you are the boss so tell me if I screwed up.

First, the course.

My ground is uphill with the gully "obstructions".  Disregard the painted upright posts in the vids as they are meter markers.  My range goes to 1000 and we have meter markers to 400 meters.

As I understand the rules, you must shoot a minimum of 3 shots in each yardage bracket, so I figured, shoot as many up close as possible.  shoot 3 at each bound at range and then do a mag dump at 15, so-to-speak.

"Dead Line" sticks set at 100, 76, 55, 30 and 15 yards.  Barrier at 15.

Second, the mags.

I shot the 15 first.  Burned the required 3 shots minimum at 100, 76, 55, 30 and then finished that mag at 15 and empty the 10 there, too.  Then do a mag change and advance to the target {within the 5 yard line, but I checked bodies and one was still a threat so I finished it off with my bolo. }.  Then spring back to 100 and fire the last 5.

I don't have a GoPro so I used 2 digital cameras.  The first one was stationary at 100 and the other I screwed to a piece of aluminum and put that "handle" in my shooting vest and duct taped it in good and sturdy.  It worked!  Call it the GoAm for Go Amateur!

Start/ 100 yd line;



76 yard line;



55 yard line;



30 yard line;



15 yard line/Barrier;



Rifle;

PSA Pencil barrel middy upper + PSA blem lower, PSA Premium BCG.  Scope is a Burris 1.75-5 w/ German 4a reticle.  Danish milsurp belt and modified P37 Bren gun pouch and Sidearm is one of my bolos I make.  Don't leave home without it.



The "GoAm" setup;



Target.  Yeah, all 30 are there.  There are a few clusters;





Here is the stationary video.  Other posted later.:



http://vid38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Skaapskieter/AugeeIMChallenge/AugeeChallenge%20003_zps7fx8wk7a.mp4

Videos are private. Toggle to public or link shared in youtube.

Hits look good!!

Edit: thanks for fixing the links!