Yes, we see a lot of that and I think it is probably the biggest argument against the scan. I really like the way Randy Harris taught me a 360 scan. It is much like when you do a MUC problem looking for other involved parties by stepping off line and maybe even circling to get a view without giving up your view of the immediate problem. Of course this is a little tougher to do with a firing line of people and not applicable to every situation. Anyway I am getting a little in the weeds by just focusing on the post fight scan.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
IS SCANNING REALLY AN AFTER ACTION DRILL?
- Thread starter cedartop
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes, we see a lot of that and I think it is probably the biggest argument against the scan. I really like the way Randy Harris taught me a 360 scan. It is much like when you do a MUC problem looking for other involved parties by stepping off line and maybe even circling to get a view without giving up your view of the immediate problem. Of course this is a little tougher to do with a firing line of people and not applicable to every situation. Anyway I am getting a little in the weeds by just focusing on the post fight scan.
Hah! You quoted me before I deleted. I figured my post was a little off topic.
When I have the freedom to move I prefer to move in something akin to a semicircle around what was the original threat. I'm still oriented toward it, but I can see pretty much everything as I move. It might be similar to what you're describing from Randy.
When I have the freedom to move I prefer to move in something akin to a semicircle around what was the original threat. I'm still oriented toward it, but I can see pretty much everything as I move. It might be similar to what you're describing from Randy.
Rhino I don't know that you are off topic. I use what you referred to as a "Waggle" when shooting USPSA. Well actually I bring the gun back into retention and "scan" left and right. I consider this to be more administrative in that it forces me to refocus on the fact the stage or drill is complete. Otherwise I might just pop the mag and show clear out of pure habit. (Probably not a good deal on the street. LOL) I don't know that it is a truly useful tactic in real life. As has been mentioned most people scan but don't really see what is around them. (guilty as charged here as well)
I do think introducing a scan as part of introductory courses makes sense. If nothing else it is a safe way to introduce the concept on the typical square range. Ultimately however the goal should be to develop gun handling skills to the point that a person does not have to think about those. If your mind is occupied with how to shoot or how to work the controls then it will be impossible to process any other information.
I had the opportunity to attend an ILEA accredited "active shooter" (IARD) recently. I can tell you that I did not do enough scanning prior to shooting. It is really amazing how the human mind can become fixated on something.
I do think introducing a scan as part of introductory courses makes sense. If nothing else it is a safe way to introduce the concept on the typical square range. Ultimately however the goal should be to develop gun handling skills to the point that a person does not have to think about those. If your mind is occupied with how to shoot or how to work the controls then it will be impossible to process any other information.
I had the opportunity to attend an ILEA accredited "active shooter" (IARD) recently. I can tell you that I did not do enough scanning prior to shooting. It is really amazing how the human mind can become fixated on something.
"Scanning", like many things we do on a square range, is simply a drilled exercise that we practice at the component level. Unfortunately most people don't continue their training off the square range into something like FoF, where every component is put into actual practice.
In my experience, scanning is something that's done before, during, and after an incident. And its often done in conjunction with other things like moving. So much so that it never looks like the dance rhino describes.
And we often like to think of "situational awareness" as simply being aware of your surroundings. Well it also means being aware of a situation as it unfolds around you. And scanning is part of this awareness.
In my experience, scanning is something that's done before, during, and after an incident. And its often done in conjunction with other things like moving. So much so that it never looks like the dance rhino describes.
And we often like to think of "situational awareness" as simply being aware of your surroundings. Well it also means being aware of a situation as it unfolds around you. And scanning is part of this awareness.
I think most are just going through the motions and aren't really scanning anything.
I didn't think I had anything to add to this discussion, but I'm going to throw in anyway. If you're scanning to scan, you're misssing the training value. If you're teaching it only as a glance around for another attacker, you're missing a big opportunity.
The static range class is teaching a small excerpt of what, in reality, will be a fluid and moving situation. It is a whole class on one very small moment in the overall situation. It is an important part, but not the whole thing by a long shot. So put the scan in context. You should be looking around for ways to improve your position, gain tactical advantage, avoid obtacles, identify foreground and background issues, and identify other threats. It should be happening from the minute you find you're in the situation until you are completely safe. You're scanning the whole time that you're not doing a specific task (like shooting or communicating, or moving with purpose to a better place).
So in that context, what is the scan? That's where you're looking for the best thing to do next. You're identifying where to go, locating your child, looking for others to help, assessing your own wounds, and moving to a better place where people are trying to kill you a little less.
The scan is gathering info to make the next decision and take the next step. Teach it with context in mind. Visualize it with context in mind.
The static range class is teaching a small excerpt of what, in reality, will be a fluid and moving situation. It is a whole class on one very small moment in the overall situation. It is an important part, but not the whole thing by a long shot. So put the scan in context. You should be looking around for ways to improve your position, gain tactical advantage, avoid obtacles, identify foreground and background issues, and identify other threats. It should be happening from the minute you find you're in the situation until you are completely safe. You're scanning the whole time that you're not doing a specific task (like shooting or communicating, or moving with purpose to a better place).
So in that context, what is the scan? That's where you're looking for the best thing to do next. You're identifying where to go, locating your child, looking for others to help, assessing your own wounds, and moving to a better place where people are trying to kill you a little less.
The scan is gathering info to make the next decision and take the next step. Teach it with context in mind. Visualize it with context in mind.
Last edited:
I'm new... so keep that in mind. I am glad John chimed in, because in his 101 class we learned to actually pay attention to our scan. After the shooter scanned and re-holstered, the rest of the class would ask 'How many fingers was I holding up?' or 'What was Rhino doing?'. It forced you to pay attention to what was going on around you.
Scanning accurately I think can be difficult to pull off, and take seriously when shooting alone on a range without discipline, often feeling 'robotic'. Heck, even in dry firing, I'll state out loud 'I am done with dry fire practice' in order to get myself 'out of the zone'.
And a large part of that is safety oriented. It might be interesting to throw a rubber snake or firecrackers near someone who just finished their string of shots, but may not be the safest thing to do. If the range were more dynamic, then more possibilities would cater to scanning. But for the average shooter, safety blunts it a bit I think.
God only knows how I would handle a real situation even with my limited training. Certainly food for thought... and makes me think that when I am out in my backyard shooting, I should pay more attention to the finer details around me, rather than to just 'go through the motions', scanning out of habit.
Scanning accurately I think can be difficult to pull off, and take seriously when shooting alone on a range without discipline, often feeling 'robotic'. Heck, even in dry firing, I'll state out loud 'I am done with dry fire practice' in order to get myself 'out of the zone'.
And a large part of that is safety oriented. It might be interesting to throw a rubber snake or firecrackers near someone who just finished their string of shots, but may not be the safest thing to do. If the range were more dynamic, then more possibilities would cater to scanning. But for the average shooter, safety blunts it a bit I think.
God only knows how I would handle a real situation even with my limited training. Certainly food for thought... and makes me think that when I am out in my backyard shooting, I should pay more attention to the finer details around me, rather than to just 'go through the motions', scanning out of habit.
For those that are against scanning, what are your reasons for not wanting to see what's going on behind you?
I realize we talk about knowing what's going on before you get involved but things are fluid and change very rapidly. What was completely safe behind you may not be so just a short 5 seconds later. Maybe it's even a cop that's responding. I would want to see him so I could put my weapon down rather than have him see me standing over a dead body with a gun in my hand. Maybe he over-reacts. I've had cops pointing guns at me and it's all I could do to try to calm them down.
I understand that people do not like the way scans are being conducted right now on the range, but that's an instructor issue, not a question of whether the tactic is valid. At least in my opinion. I wouldn't be for a scan where someone just whips their head left and right and is back in the holster in .5 secs. But the answer would be to correct the student's poor performance, not eliminate the tactic.
That can certainly be taught on a square range as I've done it myself. I will run a drill where after a string of fire, the shooter scans (or at least SHOULD scan) 360 degrees. If he does it correctly, he sees someone down behind him with a "round" to the femoral, requiring him to decide what to do next. He's standing there up range, a gun in his hand, a known (possibly eliminated?) threat behind him, a civilian bleeding out in front of him. He's got a cell phone on him. There is better cover available for him. What does he do? What are the priorities of work?
I agree with Jackson--Always Be Looking For Work. Work being something else to do right now.
I would like to hear the rationale for not scanning for those that propose that.
I realize we talk about knowing what's going on before you get involved but things are fluid and change very rapidly. What was completely safe behind you may not be so just a short 5 seconds later. Maybe it's even a cop that's responding. I would want to see him so I could put my weapon down rather than have him see me standing over a dead body with a gun in my hand. Maybe he over-reacts. I've had cops pointing guns at me and it's all I could do to try to calm them down.
I understand that people do not like the way scans are being conducted right now on the range, but that's an instructor issue, not a question of whether the tactic is valid. At least in my opinion. I wouldn't be for a scan where someone just whips their head left and right and is back in the holster in .5 secs. But the answer would be to correct the student's poor performance, not eliminate the tactic.
That can certainly be taught on a square range as I've done it myself. I will run a drill where after a string of fire, the shooter scans (or at least SHOULD scan) 360 degrees. If he does it correctly, he sees someone down behind him with a "round" to the femoral, requiring him to decide what to do next. He's standing there up range, a gun in his hand, a known (possibly eliminated?) threat behind him, a civilian bleeding out in front of him. He's got a cell phone on him. There is better cover available for him. What does he do? What are the priorities of work?
I agree with Jackson--Always Be Looking For Work. Work being something else to do right now.
I would like to hear the rationale for not scanning for those that propose that.
I like this idea. It is not something you could incorporate very well with a whole line of students but sounds like a great one-person drill. This drives my earlier point about gathing information to make decisions. To me, the scan done on the line should be presented in that context. Students should be thinking about the next move. Where is the cover? Where are the other people? Are they threats? Do they need help? Can they help me? Where do I move to? Etc. These are the things a student should be thinking while they are scanning. For this reason, I am not a huge fan on the concept of making them remember what color a car was or how many fingers someone was holding up. They should see that stuff, process it, and if it isn't helping them, move on to the next bit of information. Making them memorize it is a good drill to get them seeing rather than looking. Its not really the way they should be processing information or the mindset they should have though. They should be looking for opportunities and threats. Empty/full hands, avenues of egress, a better weapon they can use, whatever.
The drill you've discussed goes a step further and makes them actually make the decision about what is best and work it though. I like that.
So where do I go to take one of your classes? (I know, not offered to the public.) :-)
Also, the 360 degree, spin-in-place scan is just a rough simulation of what it probably looks like in practice. In practice maybe it looks like this: You identify a threat, as you attempt to move to a better position, maybe around, maybe an angle, maybe putting something between you and him, you glance around for obstacles, places to go, other threats. If you get a chance you get a position where you see behind you, maybe you glance over a shoulder to verify. The threat triggers you to shoot. You're shooting and maybe behind cover, maybe you're not. Maybe you stop and shoot, or you're shooting and moving, but you're focused on the primary threat and you shoot it down. As soon as it goes down, you're looking around the immediate area for a place to improve your position. You see one and move around the threat, or away, or wherever with your head on a swivel picking up more visual information as you go, always giving the primary threat a significant portion of your attention. You're looking all around you for whatever it is you need to do next and you're moving towards it.
You're not standing still doing a 360 or pacing back and forth in a line. That's just what we're doing on the line due to the limitations of the situation. In simulation, and I expect also in real life, its a bit more fluid and part of the general shooting, gathering info, making decisions, and moving to the next thing to improve my situation.
As esrice mentioned, this is where scenario-based training really comes in to play. You not only get a chance to see all those options, but to really process the information in real time and make decisions about it. And the more you do it, the more you can process and the more information you're able to analyze and use to make better decisions.
You're not standing still doing a 360 or pacing back and forth in a line. That's just what we're doing on the line due to the limitations of the situation. In simulation, and I expect also in real life, its a bit more fluid and part of the general shooting, gathering info, making decisions, and moving to the next thing to improve my situation.
As esrice mentioned, this is where scenario-based training really comes in to play. You not only get a chance to see all those options, but to really process the information in real time and make decisions about it. And the more you do it, the more you can process and the more information you're able to analyze and use to make better decisions.
You bring up something I've been wrestling with. I do the fingers and other observation tests as a way to do at least SOMETHING. And it's easier to do on a whole line. It also gets them communicating since I require them to shout it. They get used to communicating that way. (Surprising how reticent students are to yell loud enough to be heard and establish a command presence. Or to communicate valuable info to fellow shooters.) I also like that it focuses on the HANDS. The hands are what kill you and it is hard to get people to focus on hands first and faces later. It's opposite of what we normally do in our daily walk of life.
However, I'm the first to admit that it falls short of what I'm trying to accomplish, as you point out. I want them to observe IMPORTANT info that becomes evaluated and then acted upon. I think counting fingers is better than absolutely nothing registering as you spin around. And it's something quick, easy and free to do for a whole line of shooters. But, I want to find a better way to attack this issue. Any suggestions you have will be appreciated.
I don't know that I have any great suggestions. To be honest, I hadn't ever thought about it in this much detail until I was reading this post. I was reading along and thought: "That's not even what you should be looking for. Its not even the point of scanning." So from there on out I was just saying what came to mind.
As mentioned, the fingers and identifying objects is a good drill for getting students looking instead of just seeing. I don't think its bad. I actually think its good, but should be presented with the background info and overall purpose. This way, students will know what they're supposed to be doing with all that info they are looking at.
Without being able to change the backdrop it will be difficult to get students engaged and really making decisions every time they turn around. Once they've seen the background a couple times they'll just be thinking through a pre-concieved plan for what to do after the action. For there to be decisions, the background needs to change enough to give them different options. You've got to put things behind or around them they can think about and make decisions about, as you do in your wounded bystander drill. And you've got to make sure they understand what info they are gathering, how to prioritize it, and then what they can do with it.
Much of it lies with the student. When they turn around they should be thinking "I could move over there. I could make a call. I could...". Maybe getting them to verbalize that is a step. They turn around and as they are looking around they talk through their options. "I see two people, non-threats; a car, possible cover/escape; a door, but I don't know what's on the other side; a barrel I can put between me and the shooter, I'll move to the barrel, check myself, and look for better options".
I dunno. That's just a thought. Language is the pathway to thought process. So its a simple option. Getting them focused on the options and thinking about where to go should be the focus.
As mentioned, the fingers and identifying objects is a good drill for getting students looking instead of just seeing. I don't think its bad. I actually think its good, but should be presented with the background info and overall purpose. This way, students will know what they're supposed to be doing with all that info they are looking at.
Without being able to change the backdrop it will be difficult to get students engaged and really making decisions every time they turn around. Once they've seen the background a couple times they'll just be thinking through a pre-concieved plan for what to do after the action. For there to be decisions, the background needs to change enough to give them different options. You've got to put things behind or around them they can think about and make decisions about, as you do in your wounded bystander drill. And you've got to make sure they understand what info they are gathering, how to prioritize it, and then what they can do with it.
Much of it lies with the student. When they turn around they should be thinking "I could move over there. I could make a call. I could...". Maybe getting them to verbalize that is a step. They turn around and as they are looking around they talk through their options. "I see two people, non-threats; a car, possible cover/escape; a door, but I don't know what's on the other side; a barrel I can put between me and the shooter, I'll move to the barrel, check myself, and look for better options".
I dunno. That's just a thought. Language is the pathway to thought process. So its a simple option. Getting them focused on the options and thinking about where to go should be the focus.
One of my pet peeves is when instructors teach the "importance" of 360 degree scanning by holding up weapons behind students during live fire drills. I have seen this at two schools I have attended. So the student is supposed to scan and then a certain percentage of the students will report that, "yes, I saw that instructor Bob had a knife out." and a certain percentage will not.
Sounds great on paper, but what are they actually teaching their students? See, but ignore a person with a weapon behind you? If you are really scanning to look for more "threats" (more on this in a moment) what Mindset are we building that ignores that potential "threat" and continues about our business of finishing the drill?
Now, I teach my students to not just scan for threats but to actually look around for things that will keep you safer. Sure, other bad guys are a part of that, but so are other good guys (responding LEOs?) or injured people who need your help or better cover that you should be heading to or any number of other items or people that should be registered in your brain.
Junk scanning is junk. Purposeful scanning is actually useful. It brings 360 degree awareness back into your situational awareness because chances are high that you will have been very uni-directionally focused if you have been fighting someone.
Sounds great on paper, but what are they actually teaching their students? See, but ignore a person with a weapon behind you? If you are really scanning to look for more "threats" (more on this in a moment) what Mindset are we building that ignores that potential "threat" and continues about our business of finishing the drill?
Now, I teach my students to not just scan for threats but to actually look around for things that will keep you safer. Sure, other bad guys are a part of that, but so are other good guys (responding LEOs?) or injured people who need your help or better cover that you should be heading to or any number of other items or people that should be registered in your brain.
Junk scanning is junk. Purposeful scanning is actually useful. It brings 360 degree awareness back into your situational awareness because chances are high that you will have been very uni-directionally focused if you have been fighting someone.
Good points, Shay.
I think this feeds rather nicely into your "closest and best" game lecture, which I think is fantastic. I won't share it here if it's something they have to go to your class to get
If you guys haven't trained with Mindset Lab FoF, and you carry a gun for self-defense, you really should go. Especially if topics like this thread are important to you. All of us can have theories of what exactly is appropriate and what we'll do in a scenario. The problem is the scenarios we envision never seem to fully replicate themselves exactly in the real world. So, getting some FoF training is absolutely crucial for better preparedness.
I think this feeds rather nicely into your "closest and best" game lecture, which I think is fantastic. I won't share it here if it's something they have to go to your class to get
If you guys haven't trained with Mindset Lab FoF, and you carry a gun for self-defense, you really should go. Especially if topics like this thread are important to you. All of us can have theories of what exactly is appropriate and what we'll do in a scenario. The problem is the scenarios we envision never seem to fully replicate themselves exactly in the real world. So, getting some FoF training is absolutely crucial for better preparedness.
Site Supporter
Members online
- Smith& W
- EODFXSTI
- chef larry
- el_barto3
- KYLogger
- indyblue
- knutty
- Bosshoss
- bub74
- skydelta34
- Lucar186
- NyleRN
- hemicharger
- MrSmitty
- trimman83
- harley08
- blueskies
- wtburnette
- 510picker
- L C H
- Snapdragon
- master*photog
- led4thehed2
- Ingomike
- OneBadV8
- medavis428@
- Twinsen
- RugerRem2882
- TheGrumpyGuy
- dowalker
- hhi7410
- Tankerdave
- ISP 5353
- rhamersley
- bmmyers08
- SmileDocHill
- blain
- nrar15
- 6mm
- Indiana Ed
- teddy12b
- red_zr24x4
- Evanfowl
- Jlburger
- LD36
- tude
- Chewie
- Joniki
- jsn_mooney
- diver dan
