I've been curious to this trend the last 8-10 years of people (not specialists) who train more for CQB than they do things like up/down, mobility, using cover, etc. I understand it's good to have a general skillset, but it seems like every year people spend more and more time on upright shots at 6-10 yards than they do getting behind something and firing to 50-300.

Am I missing something? Just not cool enough to understand? Or what?

LARPING mostly

most urban encounters are going to be at bad breath distances

50-300yds is utterly unjustifiable from a self defense/home defense perspective.

Being able to defend yourself, your home, family is a hell of a lot more important if you have to choose. Especially with events over the last year.

It is much easier to find a range where you can shoot 6-10 yards than it is where you can shoot from 50-300 yards.

And it is easier to film such shooting.

To be fair, close distance incidents are more likely to occur than long distance incidents.

The majority of American gun owners probably spend most of their time in a close quarters environment.  

Training CQB makes sense to me, whether or not it is indeed an accurate proposition that CQB training is so prevalent.

Because the entire world is a big city.

You mean close shooting. CQB would include things other than shooting.

I'm going with the above.

And
A) If you can shoot accurately out to ~300 yards, and realize you're taking fire from 50 - 300 yards, do you REALLY need training to think, "F###! Take cover!".

OTOH, most shit goes down at close range (most defensive shootings occur at under 10 yards). At that range, survival against an armed attacker is going to depend on getting fast, accurate hits,  so why wouldn't folks want to train that?

Train how you fight?

All good points, and some things I hadn't considered, thanks.

I guess I have a different tactical mindset since I don't live in an urban environment. If I need to defend my house, it's going to be from a fixed ambush position as well, not from a low/high ready clearing rooms (no kids, so I guess again I'm showing my tactical bias).

If shtf, a city is the absolutely last place I will be. Non handgun engagements are still mostly going to be from behind barriers, not quick draw style I think. I guess my point is, virtually nobody is clearing houses in 99% of the cases, so why are so many people trying to train for that so much?

But ya, I agree with the poster who said "the way things are going" we all need to train for our AOs as best we can.

Might have to deal with them in CQB if they break in to our a/o

While I concur with the basic philosophy, it's about prioritizing.

If shit goes down at close range, you have very little time to act/react. Prevailing is going to depend on the speed of effective action, and that takes a lot of practice and drilling. Making accurate hits, quickly is already something that takes plenty of practice. Doing it under pressure/duress is even more difficult. Having enough repetition to train it into muscle memory is an advantage.

The other scenario/situation is less time/speed dependent (and it's for this reason that just about everyone who's used an LPVO for any amount of shooting both near and far, advocate leaving it on 1x vs 6x. If you need 1x, you need it NOW. If you need 6x, you have more time to dial). I'm not saying you shouldn't take cover ASAP any time you wind up taking fire, but in the case of CQB, your survival likely will depend on how quickly you can initiate or return fire effectively.

In a long range scenario, getting behind cover quickly is priority #1 (and that's without considering that most folks who've never taken fire tend to experience a delay before recognizing/understanding that they're taking fire).

Practicing getting behind cover and rapidly returning accurate fire at a shooter ~300 yards away?
A) you're hoping that they suck enough that you either have advance warning of the threat, or that they're inaccurate enough that they missed.
B) they must suck pretty bad for you to know where to accurately return fire AFTER being shot at from even 100, much less 300 yards out.
C) if you knew they were coming in advance, wouldn't you already be behind cover? I'm assuming this is some kind of SHTF fantasy, where someone's envisioning defending their homestead when the authorities are unable to respond in an effective fashion/timeframe (if not, why wouldn't you have called them in advance if you knew of an impending/approaching threat?).
D) again, if you can already make accurate shots to 300 yards, common sense = if you're taking fire from a distance, take cover first,  return fire as necessary. If you're defending a homestead in the boonies, wouldn't you already know your ranges and various firing positions from your house? So what's the repetitive training/drilling involve? Running/crawling as quickly as possible from one position to another while envisioning engaging some kind of invading horde? Genuinely trying to understand the reasoning here.

It kind of seems like the difference between training to defend yourself from a punch/takedown vs training to defend yourself from a flying bodyslam from someone jumping off the back of a moving pickup truck. If the first is ever required, success is dependent on enough drilling to effectively react quickly/immediately. If the 2nd somehow happens, you should be able to see it from far enough, that you can take an appropriate course of action, unless you get hit before you ever saw it coming, in which case, not much preparation/training would've helped. Train how you fight, but learn how to prioritize what you're training for.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client shot the man/woman/person? at 300 yards because they invaded his personal space and he felt threatened.

CQB will get you killed, I’m all for training for it just in case but I would avoid doing it for real if at all possible.

If you need to do it you need to do it. Since I’m not equipped to reduce a home with HE I might need to overcome its occupation manually.

I don't really understand what you are saying. Sometimes it seems like you are saying you don't need to practice at longer distances because that is so easy, and sometimes it seems like you are saying that close range is so easy.

There are thousands of engagement studies in war across the past 100 years. The overwhelming majorities are between 80-150yards. If enemy engages you at 300 yards and miss, they don't suck unless it's an ambush and they have heavier stuff. I'm talking about chance passings that aren't planned where one side happens on the other. These are the vast majority of engagements over the past 70 years. Sure, battles are planned, but they never work out that way. That's why the israelis have had success imo, they can adapt faster than any other force to changes because of the autonomous structure...but anyhow.

If there is not a concrete target in a concrete target, which the wot has made us extremely spoiled to, then like other have said hunting via cqb is not a viable tactic. We won't have that advantage. Practicing qcb ad naseuam for what's to come seems inefficient to me.

Israelis lol

Where do most people spend the majority of their time?

If you can answer that question, then you have the answer to your post

Shooting at close range isn't cqb. Most people just do close-in shooting (and call it cqb) since most self defense situations will happen there. Cqb/room work/ret/mout/etc is more about angles, timing, and communication and how they relate to the principles of domination than the fundamentals of marksmanship. All this relies on a solid foundation of weapons handling which comes first. If your system goes "click" instead of "bang" and you fail to apply the appropriate action(s) then no amount of cqb/close in shooting will help you.

Maybe OP could clarify what he's talking about with regards to training. What I picture for CQB training is something like a 3-gun competition. Rapid, controlled movement from cover to cover (or concealment to concealment) while engaging multiple targets with whatever weapon you are currently holding. If that's the case, then CQB is also decent training for longer range engagements where someone would do the same thing, hopefully with a rifle with optics to engage at the longer ranges.

@bluemax_1, it is common sense to take cover, but as I understand it, when you are engaged in actual life-or-death, common sense is not in play but instead your body reacts as it is used to.

The way I see it, CQB training is training for the scenario that requires the most split-second reaction times. If you react to a long range situation the way you'd react to a situation at knife range, you'll still be in a decent position, with a bit of time to consider. If you react to a knife range scenario the way you'd handle shooting at 300 yards, you'd be well and truly fucked.

In my opinion you need only look at the videos on WorldStar and Documenting reality where shooting encounters occur and at what distance. Alot at close quarters, so why not train for it. It doesnt alleviate the fact that you should train and try to be proficient at shots out to distance.

And yes, its easier to film close distance target shooting for the youtube crowd. But thats the youtubes, lots of rounds and slick gear to get the views. In true arfcom fashion do both. Add in alittle "in and around vehicle scenarios", concealed carry presentation and you'll have a pretty good defensive training curriculum.

Pretty much agreed.

Between OPs first post and the one just a few above yours though, I have no idea WTF he's talking about.

The first post seemed like a poorly worded query on why people spend more time training/drilling close range shooting vs... training to shoot out to 300 yards from cover? His last post though... I have no idea.

I'm all about "ambush positions", but how much time are you going to spend in one?

Post SHTF, I'd bet a lot, but for everyday living? And does your home/property only have one entry point? I'm guessing not, so an inside/close to the house scenario is most likely.

Train accordingly.

A lot of it does depend on where you live, but if your just talking home defense then CQB is much more important than shooting past 100 yards because there isn't many circumstances in which you would need to shoot that far for self defense

Also it is simply much easier to train for CQB when you have access to things like airsoft, wheras it can be hard to train to shoot farther away.  I have to travel 3 hours to get to a range that lets you shoot past 100 yards

The broader principle is "context informs training priorities."

Why would you spend a lot of time training "ABC" when you are far more likely - in your context - to need "XYZ"?

Most defensive encounters are 7 yards or less.  Nearly 100% are within 25 yards.  So practicing at those distances makes a lot of sense.

That said, I think a lot of people suck at fundamentals, so shooting a rifle inside 25 yards makes them feel good that they can hit something, plus they can turn money into noise more quickly, LOL

The untrained can usually hit a man sized target at 100 yards, and have a reasonable number of hits at 200 yards.  300 yards tends to separate the men from the boys.  A good marksmanship program like Appleseed or the Army Designated Marksman program teaches out to 500 yards.

I start out pistol AND rifle students on STRONG Fundamentals.  For Pistol that is shooting out to 25 yards.  For rifle we work scaled targets simulating out to 500 yards(on day 1... and yes even novices usually get some hits).  Once STRONG Fundamentals are established, speed and close range riflery can be trained.  That gives shooters both confidence and a strong base to build off.

In his Streetfighter DVD, SGM Lamb talks about how every time he takes a kneeling position around a vehicle he is preparing to be able to take a long shot (i.e. 200 yards) even though the threat is probably a whole lot closer.  If you train STRONG Fundamentals you will be prepared for partially visible targets and distance.

ok, and um, do I actually have to say it? It's freakin fun. Come on, it gives you something really cool to do with that gun instead of just popping off rounds at a target 100 yards away.

If there is mob rule, would you wait until the 300 yards became 7 yards?  Is your use of the word unjustified based on a law suit or perceived danger?

Which would you rather have down pat, hiding behind a tree and shooting at 300 yds or engaging multiple targets much closer?

Because anyone who has ever been deer hunting has likely mastered the nuances of the former.

There's plenty of dudes who sit in a stand, while drinking beer, who shoot at 100yards or less.  Is that relevant?  Somewhat.  Hunting and sniping have A LOT of similarities.

While hunting I never took a shot beyond 100 yards and it wasn't the same as shooting 300-500 yards on a 2-way range (the critters don't shoot back).  There is crossover.  Long range hunting exists and requires more skill.

Yep.

Paul Howe's "advanced tactical pistol/rifle" describes in detail the dryfire training he does.  From what I understand what he shows is the same as what Delta does.  Dryfire can easily be done at home for 15-20 minutes a day every day.  Serious competitive shooters do extensive and regular dryfire at home.  But you need motivation to do it.  I find regular training or competition can be a good motivator.

This. You will most likely be attacked at close range. In fact it's probably not self defense if it isn't close.
I live where I really can't even find a shot over 100 yards. Dense forest. I have a 25 yard CQB range and a 100 yard range with 50 and 25. I'll zero most of my rifles at 50 or 100 from a bench, then practice standing off hand at 50, but the majority of my rounds fired are from 7 to 25 on the CQB range. I also fire way more rounds through handguns than rifles. Sadly I'll probably be firing a lot less rounds now with current ammo prices and the Russian ammo ban.

Recently took the Appleseed training and really enjoyed it.  It's pretty much the opposite of CQB training.  They even made fun of some YouTubers.  

But it seems to me they are opposite styles of shooting for different reasons.  Appleseed is great for outdoor, long distance engagements, however with today's urban environments it seems like "CQB" style training focused on speed would be very useful as well.

CQB or “Close Quarters Battle” is close in fighting mostly in and around structures at about 25 yards or less.

In a strictly “Defensive situation”, you are more than likely going to be fighting at those distances since you more than likely will be in and around structures. There aren’t many instances from a ”Defensive”  standpoint that you will fight  any other way unless you take an approach of “Any person entering anywhere near my property is being shot.” That situation is very rare. There aren’t many situations where one will maintain an elevated position to take that approach.

As far as training goes for for the above unlikely scenario, there isn’t much to it. All it consists of is marksmanship and cover and concealment. If there are more than one of you there is also placement for “ Overlapping Fields of Fire” Not much to it.

CQB training on the other hand is complex and it’s a skill that diminishes without practice. There are many aspects to training for it such as marksmanship, various methods and techniques of entering rooms and clearing them depending on if you are alone or if you have multiple people with you, speed in weapons manipulation for reloading and clearing malfunctions since fighting up close isn’t as forgiving as from a distance, how to pie corners, shoot or no shoot, etc.

You are more likely to have to clear your home during an invasion than a shoot on site situation 50 to 100 yards or more away on your property.

The real answer is to "Get Both".



Experience in combat (From WW2 to Afghanistan) shows that 500 yard shooting skills are REQUIRED:
INCREASING SMALL ARMS LETHALITY IN AFGHANISTAN TAKING BACK THE INFANTRY HALF KILOMETER

Thats what crew served weapons are for bro.

I live in the country as well.  There is a near zero chance that I will ever end up shooting at anyone outside of a CQB-style range.

The current training methodology is a progressive model.  For instance:

1. Basic Pistol (or carbine)
2. Advanced Pistol (or carbine)
3. Some CQB derived capstone.  Basically, for the general public, it should be a one-man or two-person (husband/wife) building clearing class.
4. Medical or other advanced classes

These classes cover virtually 99.9% of civilian lethal force encounters.  If you are engaging people from a distance without a complete and total societal breakdown, you are jail bound as it's not self-defense.  That wouldn't be much different than me hanging 60mm mortars every time my driveway sensor beeps.  People get all upset when you start whacking the bible thumpers...go figure.

Marksmanship is great and should be taught and practiced regularly, but if you are ever engaging targets at distance you might want to look towards insurgent TTP's instead of an Army 11B's skill set that is based upon a doctrine of overwhelming firepower and complete battlespace superiority.

Advances in technology seem to be pushing out engagement distances, hence the supposed new Army rifle.  Afghanistan added to it, but thermal imaging, body armor, optics...are all in the mix.