Hey fellas,

I wrote this ed as a response to some of the methods I see taught in the tactical (tacti-cool?) community. Bottom line up front: If your'e paying for training that you are relying on to save your life, you need to seriously evaluate an instructor's source credibility. Give me a shout if you agree/disagree, I always value feedback from the civilian shooting community.

Thanks,
Aaron

Aaron,

Please refrain from posting links that direct traffic back to your website. Feel free to post content here directly as I have just done on your behalf. If you'd rather not have your content posted here, let me know and I'll delete it.

Moderator

Search and Assess: The Metric for Identifying Your Instructor’s Lack of Credentials
February 19, 2015

by Aaron Barruga

Special Operations culture has proliferated due to the past 15 years of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, commercial shooting instruction is flooded with former Operators and self-proclaimed experts. The market price for a day of high quality instruction teeters around $200. However, that cost isn’t always representative of an instructor’s credentials – or most importantly – ability to instruct. Regardless, consumers are willing to forfeit money for training they perceive as replicating their favorite Tier One unit. Capitalizing on the naivety of tactical-civilians are instructors with questionable methods, but high levels of showmanship that project competence. Consequently, learning something cool gives a consumer the perception of progression within shooting sports.

For most shooters, the flat range is the only resource available for skills development. This environment is great for mechanics based drills, but produces negative returns upon the introduction of “what if” training. Regardless, certain instructors use what-if drills to purport their level of credibility, when in reality they are mislabeling fundamental skills. “Search and Assess” is a principle example of a misinterpreted skill disguised as a tactical necessity.

Patrick McNamara of TMACS Inc - and JSOC veteran - categorizes search and assess as “shooting by choreography.” Additionally, Frank Proctor of Way of the Gun - and Special Forces veteran - describes search and assess in his “Performance Carbine” DVD:

A lot of times for tactical shooters, we do the regain situational awareness thing, a lot of times we end up faking the funk, and I did it, I did it to look cool. When I would demo shooting drills, it got down to amongst the instructors who had the coolest scan and assess… but if we’re going to look around, let’s see something.

Search and assess was born out of the necessity to immediately regain situational awareness following a gunfight. However, a gunfight is not over because the enemy falls to the ground or stops returning fire. In order to determine if a fight is over, a shooter must conduct follow through by re-indexing between threats. Ignoring follow through and immediately searching and assessing places a shooter in a dangerous situation. As a result, shooters forfeit their ability to take immediate and possibly life saving follow-up shots.

Shooting at known and suspected enemy locations is taught to even the most junior infantry private. If contact with the enemy is made to the front, it’s reasonable to assume there is more enemy to the front. This is obviously not an empirical standard for enemy contact, but during the initial ambiguity of a firefight, combat leaders attempt to paint a mental picture that allows them to identify enemy locations. Understandably, maintaining 360-degree security in an infantry platoon is different than performing security as an individual. If no one has your back, it makes absolute sense to check behind your person. However, movement to cover should be accomplished beforehand. Because hostiles also shoot at known and suspected combatant locations, remaining static for even just a few seconds will decrease an individual’s security.

The inherent flaw with search and assess is that it creates a false sense security. This is a result of the synthetic environment created by flat range training. Flat range training allows for a lot of “knowns” within a shooter’s operational environment. A shooter knows what is around him, he knows where all the targets are situated, and he knows the locations of his teammates or fellow students. While performing search and assess at the conclusion of a course of fire, a shooter can go through the motions because he doesn’t need to process information. This allows for rapid head jerking movements that look operator-ish, but are completely counter-intuitive to personal security.

We can only process information at the quality we receive it. Driving down the freeway and rapidly jerking your head left and right does not allow you to identify hazardous road conditions or dangerous drivers. This is accomplished by methodically scanning your vehicles front and by using your mirrors to look to your side and rear. Similarly, if you walked into a crowded bar and jerked your head left to right, you wouldn’t be able to identify where the nearest exists were located or assess the threat potential of different individuals.  

Instructors that brand misinterpreted skills as insider knowledge create a cyclical relationship in which unquestioned methods become doctrine. This behavior has proliferated in the digital age through social media such as Youtube. Consequently, anyone can purport expertise as long as they look the part. If consumers intend to avoid learning nonsense, special consideration should be placed on questioning training methods and how they relate to broader concepts.

I think it all lies around processing information. Useful information. At some point in the training (flat range or force on force), the search and assess ritual has got to possess some gathering of useful information the student will use to complete the exercise. If not, it can become part of a useless range dance.

So you're saying "how" and in what context "search and assess" training is presented is an indicator of instructor worthiness?

I do agree that much of the scan actions (search and assess) observed during training indicates a lack of secondary sight picture and realistic focus on the threat (at hand) to assess the effects of initial shots... you can't move on from a potentially active threat simply to see if others are present... nor does one want to succumb to tunnel vision and become fixated to a fault. I'm constantly challenging shooters as to why they are so fast and deliberate in their actions to come off target and lower their muzzle...

I think the real challenge in training is finding a way (affordable) to simulate target reaction that is adequate to stimulate realistic responses. I've seen targets that incorporate balloons for support (a specific hit is required to activate a simulated kill response) as well as the electronic versions... again... affordability is the key. I've pondered the use of lights remotely controlled as a possible stimulus but I'm not sure that's the way to go (conditioning).

I have no combat experience nor have I been directly involved in an OIS... but I've been close enough to experience what happens, good and bad, from maintaining situational awareness as well as. becoming fixated on something.

Thanks for the link...

ETA- glad your editorial mentions Pat McNamara... I have filled two 2-day TAPS classes (20 students) in November at my place and look forward to training with him... I'll be sure to have him address this (if for some reason he does not).

I think that article hits it.  Real skills get adapted to the range until they become range techniques not optimal for real use.

How about if when they search and assess you have 2 guys on either side behind them in a safe location holding numbers. After they finish have them tell you what numbers they were holding or do it by colors ? Make the brain process information instead of your head just moving left to right.

Thanks for the feedback and I hope you have a blast hosting Mac!

Without giving our shooters any heads-up, we will have one of our instructors hold up fingers behind them, then ask them after the S/A process "Who saw ____ holding up his fingers? How many fingers was he holding up?"

It's all about processing information and it can be a simple exercise that just gets shooters to process the information in their surroundings.

I like the way Rich Mason says it at DARC. "I'm looking for good guys and bad guys." That's a process that involves knowing how to look for who to shoot and who not to shoot, which is often over looked.

That's a good one.

Or just any object could work.

"What did Tom have in his hand when you did your S/A? Did you even notice an object in his hand?"

Good points, I have trained several times with a local rifle instructor and he is very big on S&A after strings of fire. He commonly holds up "x" amount of fingers, or puts on or takes off his hat or glasses to see who is really scanning.

Never really thought about the good guy/bad guy part of it though, wonder how you could simulate that scenario with one of each on a live range?

I agree

tag

Yeah, I agree with the original author in that not enough time is spent verifying your known threats are down before whipping around and doing a scan.  That's how I read it any way.

THe more training and instructing I do the more value I see in follow through on every shot taken.

Paul Howe has a good set up for that, if it isn't  too windy. Otherwise I've taken balloons tied to strings put through holes in a uspsa style targets, which hangs them until the balloon is hit. You can cover that with a t shirt for a bit harder targeting. I think MOA targets may be working on a steel falling target too.


ETA on search and assess, I think hunting does good for people.