CR2 Shooting Solutions - What is the Standard ?

[Lowlight]

Great Conversation on Training and what is the standard

The Everyday Sniper Podcast: What is the Standard, CR2 Shooting Solutions | The Everyday Sniper

The Everyday Sniper Podcast: What is the Standard, CR2 Shooting Solutions Today on the Podcast we have Chris Rance and Chris Roberts of CR2 Shooting Solutions. We have a great discussion on teaching students and working on a standard that all can relate too.What would be your standard when it...

theeverydaysniper.podbean.com

We pose some great questions that really only a student can answer

 

[CR2 Dude]

What baseline skills, or knowledge should you leave a 2-3 Day Precision Rifle Course with?

 

[Average guy]

Great podcast. It really shows the forethought and planning that goes into a comprehensive class.

 

[Lowlight]

Marc made a good point for those who have been to our class,

We use the final eval as a standard, we don't use a target size or distance, but we do look at the students before they leave and sorta grade them on the process. It ends where we started.

it's part of, Do it right, look good doing it and people will respond and repeat what they see. So if you look professional behind the rifle others will respond.

I like the idea of having a process or a test that becomes a standard that others can replicate. If you give people something to follow and strive towards, it creates a better model to be followed by others.

We mimic a lot, it's why guys get sideways and blade off the rifle, they saw an image of someone shooting unsupported and copied what they saw minus the context. So when you have someone who is 15 degrees or more crooked, you know where it comes from, they are mimic an unsupported shooter.

Creating a better model to mimic will speed up the process, now we need to add in a standard on targets or timing or both

600 yards
1 Minute
3 rounds

Something like that later to be used as a standard.

 

[CR2 Dude]

@lowlight My only problem with the 600yd target engagement is that it’s not comprehensive enough. We know that with certain calibers and equipment set ups that a 600yd target can be a chip shot.
One thing that we did at sniper school is a shoot in. That consisted of 5 x 5rd engagements at 25yds with iron sights on a paper target. This ensure the shooters ability to apply the fundamentals before they start the course.
I think using some variation of that along with the singular distant target showcases the full embodiment of skills.

 

[Lowlight]

Our initial eval is shot at 100 yards, we do that without looking at the groups, we bring them in the class for after, but during the test, the shots are paper at 100 yards.

The problem is, 100 yards means no adjustments, 600 means doping the rifle with both wind and elevation to successfully hit the target.

Anyone can get behind a rifle with no adjustments and fire, the trick is putting all the elements together for a successful engagement, sure you can get a zippy windcheater caliber and do well at 600 vs a guy with a lesser caliber, but that doesn't mean they can or will hit the target in any meaningful way.

 

[CR2 Dude]

Our initial eval is shot at 100 yards, we do that without looking at the groups, we bring them in the class for after, but during the test, the shots are paper at 100 yards.

The problem is, 100 yards means no adjustments, 600 means doping the rifle with both wind and elevation to successfully hit the target.

Anyone can get behind a rifle with no adjustments and fire, the trick is putting all the elements together for a successful engagement, sure you can get a zippy windcheater caliber and do well at 600 vs a guy with a lesser caliber, but that doesn't mean they can or will hit the target in any meaningful way.

I guess that is where the standard for a hit would come into play. Is a hit a hit? Or do they have to be center mass.
I agree that the grouping exercise isn’t an all inclusive test. It’s part of the test.

Unless we’re grading consecutive hits or even a grouping of hits.

 

[Lowlight]

I think we are looking at two different things

The Fundamental Eval both the initial where we diagnose the shooter's fundamentals and the final eval or test is more an ending proficiency test vs an Eval



he has the 1 minute, 1 shot, 500m test so I think we are looking at 2 different things, how to test proficiency and how to evaluate a student

 

[CR2 Dude]

I think we are looking at two different things

The Fundamental Eval both the initial where we diagnose the shooter's fundamentals and the final eval or test is more an ending proficiency test vs an Eval



he has the 1 minute, 1 shot, 500m test so I think we are looking at 2 different things, how to test proficiency and how to evaluate a student

That is pretty legit.

 

[Lowlight]

It is, he does a good job

I think we have a 2 part question here,

1. The "Eval" and diagnosing the student initially, or sending them off with a standard in terms of process, that is result of taking the class.

2. A standard that can be established, and replicated across the course that includes a target package. Can you hit a given target without the aid of reference?

How an instructor approaches a student can vary for sure, the methods in which they identify issues to correct, but then we have our takeaways to address. Our process with eval really has nothing to do with other instructors, it's just a tool I use. That said, we all agree that rifle set up is necessary, the fundamentals properly put in context and applied is necessary, where you go to get there can vary, which is good. We use weaponized math to help a student, others use the software, the methods of data collection should and do vary. What we want to look at are the end results.

As Marc noted to me, we do a final fundamental eval, basically putting every single student on the same level. We have a standard for the eval we look at, and then the students replicate. But that standard for us has no target, range, or shooting component beyond our observation of the shot. We look at the student.

Technically speaking the Hits are accomplished during the class by doping the students out to distance. I see this as a multi-part task as we looking at how they establish their dope as well as some basic wind. (granted CO classes have a bigger wind component) so in terms of targets, we accomplish that mission during the class.

What I think we are trying to resolve is the standard a new shooter or ones that consider them proficient can replicate and pass on to others. What is a good, better, or best measure of a marksman?

Here is our question, what standard would one consider a good, repeatable measure of a shooter within the context of a precision rifle class? Given the variables in shooter, rifle systems, the goal should be one that is as close to equal under the variations as possible. Is 600 too far, is 200 too short, should we have both wind and drop included or just group size, where should the measures fall?

 

[CR2 Dude]

It is, he does a good job

I think we have a 2 part question here,

1. The "Eval" and diagnosing the student initially, or sending them off with a standard in terms of process, that is result of taking the class.

2. A standard that can be established, and replicated across the course that includes a target package. Can you hit a given target without the aid of reference?

How an instructor approaches a student can vary for sure, the methods in which they identify issues to correct, but then we have our takeaways to address. Our process with eval really has nothing to do with other instructors, it's just a tool I use. That said, we all agree that rifle set up is necessary, the fundamentals properly put in context and applied is necessary, where you go to get there can vary, which is good. We use weaponized math to help a student, others use the software, the methods of data collection should and do vary. What we want to look at are the end results.

As Marc noted to me, we do a final fundamental eval, basically putting every single student on the same level. We have a standard for the eval we look at, and then the students replicate. But that standard for us has no target, range, or shooting component beyond our observation of the shot. We look at the student.

Technically speaking the Hits are accomplished during the class by doping the students out to distance. I see this as a multi-part task as we looking at how they establish their dope as well as some basic wind. (granted CO classes have a bigger wind component) so in terms of targets, we accomplish that mission during the class.

What I think we are trying to resolve is the standard a new shooter or ones that consider them proficient can replicate and pass on to others. What is a good, better, or best measure of a marksman?

Here is our question, what standard would one consider a good, repeatable measure of a shooter within the context of a precision rifle class? Given the variables in shooter, rifle systems, the goal should be one that is as close to equal under the variations as possible. Is 600 too far, is 200 too short, should we have both wind and drop included or just group size, where should the measures fall?

The more I think about it, I like the 600yd target scenario. Timed, within X number of shots. I’d like it even more if there was consecutive hits

 

[precisionrifleman]

I like how @lowlight is targeting the shooter and grading them as a marksman and taking the equipment out of the equation... really this is a great way to help an individual learn what to do and how to form a process in a classroom environment so they are able to train down the road in a proper context. great points made on both sides, although if a 600 yard test is to be used, why not make it a kyl down to a small target that has a low hit probability so the majority of students fail at some point. I’m on the fence about a go/no go gauge if they are able to hit a given target at distance.

 

[Lowlight]

I call them progressive racks now, and actually a standardized rack for distance is not a bad way to test

2MOA down to 1/4 maybe do a 5 plate rack with

2MOA
1.5
1MOA
1/2
1/4 MOA

5 shots for record

 

[RG0099]

Having just taken the latest class, The final eval was a confidence builder making you feel as though you had corrected problems detected a couple days prior. But a timed eval would be cool also. Although it could be a time factor, why not do your current eval, and then transfer into a 3 or 5 shot timed series right after? All at the same distance. It would be good to have someone pick you apart when you are rushing to see if what you have been taught/what you have learned transfers to a quicker pace. Just a thought?

 

[TriggerJerk!]

I really like the focus on “evaluating the student.” That will help make everyone better, and I think that is a great goal.

 

[Lowlight]

That is how I always did it from the beginning

we always focus on the student in our classes, now the goal is to combine the focus to move some of this down range

granted the MHSA classes are slightly different than my others but overall it’s just applying the same lessons in a different way.

our focus has always been the shooter over equipment

 

[CR2 Dude]

I like how @lowlight is targeting the shooter and grading them as a marksman and taking the equipment out of the equation... really this is a great way to help an individual learn what to do and how to form a process in a classroom environment so they are able to train down the road in a proper context. great points made on both sides, although if a 600 yard test is to be used, why not make it a kyl down to a small target that has a low hit probability so the majority of students fail at some point. I’m on the fence about a go/no go gauge if they are able to hit a given target at distance.

I like the KYL Idea, if kept to reasonable sizes like @lowlight said. Proves repeatability, which ensures fundamentals. Confirms translation to distant targets, etc.

is this a blind Eval? Maybe a find it, range it, engage it scenario?

I do still like a paper portion of the eval, we’ve all seen some poor fundamentals score hits at distance

 

[Lowlight]

Ya it would be both,

this way you have an easy repeatable drill that has a purpose behind it

 

[Ben17]

So speaking of standards when leaving sotic one is expected to be able to shoot within 1 meter of a friendly out to 400meters. Doesn’t seem that hard right? We all like to act like 600 yards is a chip shot and alot of the times it is but when the pressure is on and life depends on it 600 seems alot further.
My point and what I think others would agree is the “standard” doesn’t necessarily have to be a difficult or impressive feat. To me it is showing that you can apply the fundamentals and utilize the tools you have chosen to successfully engage a target at a given range.
Now what we as a community sets as the standard has endless choices.

 

[Ben17]

My standard would be an unknown distance on a 2moa plate 2min to range, get gun data, and engage. I would keep ranges betwee. 400-650

 

[Lowlight]

Is it unknown any more or just uneven,

nobody ranges with a reticle, it’s a legacy skill that is past its prime, so using a laser, and potentially software, it’s just uneven now, not unknown. But that is semantics in a lot of ways.

my thinking is to balance the distance, so the majority of calibers have as much chance of success as the next one, while giving the shooter the opportunity to put everything in play, wind, target, fundamentals

600 is better than. 800 for this as well it’s also good for software as it should be the point, where even try dope should work using just the basic data. If you chrono a rifle at 100 and properly input the variables the elevation should hit. Trying should be a minor tweak here so it can test a variety of skills.

600 is a good balance, now to determine, 3, or 5 shots, and target package, do you do 5 shots with 4 plates, or one shot per plate? Is it’s better to do 3 plates, one shot each, 4 plates with a follow up, and 5 shots to keep with that standard.

should you say 3 outta 5 is successful or 2 outta 3 is, basically we are just creating a drill but putting a value on it vs just looking at it like a comp stage with hit or miss, instead you are putting a value on the skills necessary to successfully engage the target.

 

[Ben17]

I should have clarified i would not do range estimation I mean use a rangefinder. It is part of the process that is rarely practiced and would add a bit of stress to the test.

 

[opeagle]

I’ve not listened to the podcast yet.

I will say however if it’s a standard, then things like unknown distance, etc should be discarded. Those are variable skills regardless if we reticle ranging or use a laser.

Again a standard is something that can be easily replicated anywhere, and something without variation.

 

[SamsonSimpson]

Listened today and thoroughly enjoyed! Although not anywhere near these guys and Frank on skill, I learned a lot and plan on applying the info to my shooting.

 

[CR2 Dude]

@lowlight I think it should be two fold.

What if the standard isn’t just about your ability to engage a target/ targets. I believe that’s part of it. But would ultimately be dependent on the target audience. I.e.
-Hunter needs to be able to engage a vital zone target to X distance
-LE needs to be able to engage the T-zone to 200yds
-Sniper’s need to engage man sized target to the max effective range of their weapon
-Precision rifle competitor engage 2moa to 1000yds

You talked about your time in the MC and when you were tested it was “without the aid of reference you must XYZ.” What if the “Marksman” (or whatever we call it) is tested the same way.

“Without the aid of reference you must, employ your weapon system on a target.”
During this exercise you must:
Mount your optic
Set your length of pull/ comb height
Group/ zero/ Chrono/ and engage a 3 moa target at 600yds

“To perform this exercise you will have:
Rifle
Optic
Tools
Magazine
Zero target
Chrono/ weaponized math
And 20rds of match ammunition.”

If they can complete that, they will have shown the full gambit of skills to be considered a Marksman or graduate or wherever we’re going to call it.

 

[Lowlight]

That is what we are doing in many way we just dont segment it based on the individual.

Because the classes are a melting pot of shooters, the goal is to check as many boxes as possible in the shortest amount of time.

We are more or less trying to find the point between all that, which relays the skills needed, so the discipline chosen will still work. Why i call it the foundation, those are the individual houses each group builds on top once the foundation is set

 

[CR2 Dude]

That is what we are doing in many way we just dont segment it based on the individual.

Because the classes are a melting pot of shooters, the goal is to check as many boxes as possible in the shortest amount of time.

We are more or less trying to find the point between all that, which relays the skills needed, so the discipline chosen will still work. Why i call it the foundation, those are the individual houses each group builds on top once the foundation is set

Yeah I agree. Those are the skill sets taught in many of the courses in our circle. I’m just wondering is it really evaluated before the student leaves the course? Is it a reasonable expectation that when a students leaves one of these courses. Can they pick up any weapon and achieve that success. From start to finish?

 

[Lowlight]

We do in a way with our final evaluation, that puts it all together.

 

[CR2 Dude]

Yeah that’s remind me I need to get my ass out to your course.

maybe I need to make a trip out for some one on one.

 

[danatkins]

As far as the shooter and rifleman standard I like what I've heard you and Phil both mention. If you grab your rifle you should be able to own inside of 600. Then push for smaller targets and longer distance as you progress

 

[C.R. Adams]

I expect to be able to come away and diagnose my own shooting issues as I progress and make my own corrections