Mozambique drill, silly or not?

[fightingquaker13]

I was at the range Sunday afternoon. While I was there cleaning my guns in an area they very thoughtfully provide, some guy was regaling all and sundry about the inherent superiority of the Mozambique drill as the way to provide training for "real" SD situations. Now, me I shoot it as a change-up from just the nomal center mass practice and because I do think its the closest your going to get to  acquiring a new target rapidly on a single lane indoor range. Still, in real life, I cannot imagine shifting my aim from hits on one large  vital point to try to acquire another smaller one for what seems to me to be no  good reason (barring zombies or body armor). Yet and still, people seem to love it as a practical aid. Your thoughts?
FQ13

[Walter45Auto]

I think it's kinda like what MB said about talking about zombie preparedness on his podcast. It gets you out of a rut. It gets you out of the same old "Shoot Center Mass" or "Shoot the Bull's Eye" routine that can sometimes develop. Most folks are unlikely to ever do it in real life SD, or ever need to for that matter. But it's like shooting old washing machines, old water heaters, or tin cans. It's something different and a lot of fun.

[Rob Pincus]

It's REALLY silly. At least most of the voters realize that it is not a good SD idea.. but there are some important things to think about in terms of the "multiple target" issues. You have to understand the way the brain/eyes/body work together during an incident.

The concept is flawed, especially when taught/practiced as a choreographed response. Shooting the chest twice and then swinging to the head in an automated way every time you go to the range is presuming  A LOT. Almost none of what is being presumed (that the first two shots should be enough, that you should pause after two shots, that you will be able to get an effective headshot with a pistol, etc) is sound in the context of defending yourself from an unexpected attack.
 And swinging the gun up is not a good idea anyway... in fact, we never train to swing a gun when we are doing defensive shooting training... Whenever you have a new threat (or target at the range), you should treat each target as a separate threat. If you were going to "reset" to a new target area on a single threat for some reason, breaking the elbows and shifting laterally would again probably make more sense... although it is hard to imagine a situation where you would really want/need to do that.  The imagining of a threat with hard body armor is a thin piece of "maybe"... and even then, the better option for almost everyone is probably going to be shooting to the lower abdomen, hips, groin area. Repeated rapid shots to the high center chest area of most soft body armor is going to be a better option (and cause trauma, whether the rounds break through or not, which they likely will if you get multiple hits in the same area.

As for the "acquiring a new target" piece, like I said above, you shouldn't plan on swinging to a new target. Plate racks don't replicate multiple threats. The Irrelevente Drill doesn't replicate multiple threats. Anytime that your brain knows ahead of time and you plan
for the transition, you are cheating yourself because your brain "does the math" on the transition. In the real world (unless you are an assassin that plans to shoot multiple people), your brain will focus you on one threat and you will need to assess and find other threats... That should be done with the gun out of the shooting position so that you can re-engage in without swinging. Remember, in the real world, targets aren't just in a single lane or a 90 degree area... Watch some surveillance and/or dash camera videos of actual ambush events on the internet. Watch how the victim focuses on one threat at a time and how the positions/actions of the other people (if the victim/officer even knew they were there) change through the event. You aren't going to get a stage briefing or map of the course of fire in the real world and people underestimate how much those things help your brain coordinate your actions.


Walter, I agree with you in that it is not likely to be done in the real world... so that is exactly the reason not to do it at the range.. it will create a rut that you becomes an automated response.

***

The key to efficiency in a fight is automated intuitive processes. At the range, visualize threats and shoot strings of fire that vary in length, stopping when you visualize the threat stopping. That is what you will most likely need to do it the fight so you should train to do it while you are at the range. People who are still calling that the "non-standard response" are driving horseless carriages.

-RJP



-RJP

[fightingquaker13]

Rob
You have convinced me, more, that the Mozambique drill is silly as a practical application in SD. I mean, honestly, who in their right mind is going to say "Gee I've gotten two chest shots, lets see if I can hit the forehead" when they are scared to death? Still I thought of it as maybe a useful training tool to be used occasionally under less than ideal circumstances (a conventional range with anti-rapid fire rules). Your post  pointed out the flaw. The Mozambique drill treats new target acquistion the same way a hunter treats a covey rise. Focus on primary target, swing, fire, and swing to secondary target. Not even close to a dynamic situation. It's one of the reasons my ROTC unit put money into paint ball. They couldn't afford ammo and range time, much less MILES gear, but figured it was the best they could do to develop situational awareness and dealing with stress in a 360 degree battle field with the budget they had. I switched my vote from OK on the range, just not in RL to just plain silly due to your post. Its why I designed this poll to let you switch your vote after hearing from other posters. The idea here is we take a sacred cow, evaluate it, and change our votes accordingly. What interests me as much as the final result is not the numbers, but the votes that were changed by the insights provided by fellow board members.
FQ13

[alfsauve]

That's got me thinking.   And I've got a new drill I will try. 

While preparing to do my first 'tactical' competition, I loaded 5 magazines with 3,2,2,2,1 rounds to practice reloads.   And that was fine, as a trainer on the mechanics of reloading.  BUT, it was a "planned" scenario.  I knew I'd take two shots, reload, 2 shots......  I'm thinking a useful drill would be to load magazines with varying numbers of rounds, so I don't know when I'm going to need the reload.    Trying to concentrate on the threat rather than planning all the shots.

[Sponsor]

[ellis4538]

Alf, another good drill is make up dummy rounds and have someone load your mags with one or more and maybe an empty case  and then just shoot and do failure exercises.

FWIW

Richard

[jnevis]

Alf, another good drill is make up dummy rounds and have someone load your mags with one or more and maybe an empty case  and then just shoot and do failure exercises.

FWIW

Richard

I have used this teaching tool for reloads, failure drills, and anticipation.  I add a dummy round or spent casing, or more, SOMEWHERE in a stack of magazines and when the "Oh $h1t" moment comes you can react accordingly.  For anticipation, most people don't realize they do it.  When the dummy doesn't go off and the barrel is point at the ground it can be an epiphany.

Trying to teach Situational Awarness can be difficult.  One thing we did for a while was have students ready and fire when they heard or saw a number, then shoot that number.  The first number was audible, the rest may or may not be.  An instructor would be behind or to the side of the line and hold up cards or fingers.  Most of the time students would miss the second number while waiting for the instructors to say one.  One quickly picked it up and the rest soon follow.  It can be a little more difficult by yourself but with another person you can force yourself to look for something, a playing/3x5 card or whatever to force you to scan 360.  Of course you will need to keep the gun pointed down range but it will help get the shoot, drop the gun, holster, THEN look around habits

[USSA-1]

The concept of the Mozambique is sound but the application of the technique is flawed.  The concept of engaging alternate target areas based on ineffectiveness or opportunity is a sound technique with many real world accounts to support the concept.  The effectiveness of the concept is based upon the application of the technique and the development of the supporting mental processes.  That's a real fancy way of saying is all about how you train.

There are two common techniques for initiating a transition to an alternate target area.  They are the Hard and Soft transition.  The Hard transition is the more commonly known technique whereby the shooter induces an intentional pause while consciously identifying an alternate target area, transitioning to that area and reengaging the threat.  As Rob has pointed out earlier, there are several conscious and subconscious processes at work.  Some of which are conflicting.  A highly trained person can handle this rapid transition between states of consciousness, but I would emphasize "highly trained."  The Soft transition removes the conscious act of evaluating the effects of our shots and the decision making process (OODA Loop) from the equation and simply requires a guiding of the weapon to another target area without the need to evaluate, process, decide, re-orient, and re-engage.  During a soft transition, there is no pause during the engagement process.  After initiating the engagement process and at some point during the engagement, a transition to the alternate target area is initiated regardless of the effectiveness of the initial center mass volley (making an assumption that the threat is still present.)  During the Soft transition, the threat will be engaged continuously during the movement of the weapon to the alternate area.

Our ultimate goal is to stop the threat.  The best method of doing that is to inflict as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time.  I am a firm believer in that concept that any damage is good damage.  The more damage I can inflict, the quicker I will either diminish or eliminate the ability of the threat to effectively damage me.  While just about everyone recognizes the effectiveness of the "head shot," very few people consider the vulnerability of the neck/throat area.  We train to use the neck as the path to the head.  If you follow the neck during a transition it will take you to the head everytime, oh and by the way, keep shooting while your on that path to the head!  I don't know any reports of people taking rounds in the neck/throat and continuing to fight for any substantial amount of time.

Regardless of how highly trained you are, the Soft transition technique is faster as it removes just about all conscious thought from the fighting process.  Anytime you can shift technique or response from a conscious based response to a stimulus based response you will perform the technique faster and more efficiently.  The idea that we don't shift or move the gun during the act of shooting is flawed.  Quite the opposite, the gun is always moving.  Whether a result of our natural wobble zone (which is dramatically increased during after the adrenaline dump,) the weapon moving during recoil, our movement during the engagement process, or our threats movement during the engagement process.  We are continually moving and adjusting the weapon.  If we have the ability to make these adjustments, we also have the ability to move the weapon whether it's a conscious or subconscious act.

During the application of the Soft technique, you engage multiple rounds center mass.  If the threat is still present or more importantly, if there is still an object in your scope or behind your front sight then you continue to engage the threat while shifting your target area.  Just as we imagine stopping a threat with any various number of rounds, we continue to visualize our threat being active during our Soft transition until multiple rounds impact the alternate target area.  It's not a different technique, its just an extension of our current technique.

I think the concept for the Mozambique is valid, but the traditional application is flawed.  Proper technique, training, and mindset can make this an effective technique in a close quarters situation if applied properly.

USSA-1

[Rob Pincus]

Good thoughts... You obviously have some awareness of the mental/perception aspects, but I don't think you're giving fair attention to two things:

1. The bio-mechanics of swinging. At the USSA FB Page, there is a clip of MS doing an "irrelevente" drill. I call it that because everyone should know by now that it has nothing to do with a realistic engagement of multiple threats.. El Presidente is a circus trick, not a training drill. Ignoring the HUGE effect that pre planning the transitions from one target (or target area) to the next has on our brains ability to control our muscles (and the gun) in perfect timing is a fatal flaw of all traditional multiple target drills. In the real world, you won't know that the next target is X number of degrees away and your attention will be focused on the first target until significantly after that threat has stopped, unless you are distracted by another threat (guy shooting a gun while you were presenting at a guy with a knife, example)... but even then, the second threat is still another "ambush moment" and your training should be to engage them as such for the highest chance of getting a Combat Accurate first shot and being in a good position to manage recoil to shoot as rapid a string of fire as possible.

2. The innapproriateness of pre-planning a pattern of shots. I agree that what you call the "hard transitions" inserts an unnecessary pause. The problem with what you call the "soft transition" is that there is no stimulus response that causes the transition as I understand your explanation... you are simply "training to do it". If that is trained to an automated level , it is going to lead to reckless swinging of the gun while shooting, which means less ability to manage recoil and control deviation. LAstly, it also presumes that people will behave like paper. They don't. THe bad guy is very likely to flinch and move instinctively when you draw and shoot to defend yourself... movement of the head is DRAMATICALLY move profound in terms of relative movement from pint of aim than movement of any part of the torso.

Those who's training looks most like competition shooting, or who use competition type drills/performance to verify efficacy, often miss the counter ambush aspects of things like appropriate strings of fire, shooting & assessing at the same time, integrating the flinch into presentation and, as we are addressing here, realistic multiple target engagement. The brain is incredibly powerful when it comes to performing complex motor skills and when we tell it what is going to happen it is able to do things at a much more amazing level than when it is truly caught off guard... no amount or rehearsal is going to change the things that have the biggest affect in the real fight.

***

Alf,

Yes, that is a much better idea... "downloading" your mags to between 40 and 70 percent gives you the randomness and gives you more slide lock reload practices per box of ammo.

-RJP

[Rob Pincus]

Follow up post, because I am always interested in the "Why?" answers....

1. Have you considered the differences (physiological and behavioral) between the body/brain/eyes during range drills and counter ambush shooting?

2. If yes, how do you justify swinging between targets in preparation for defense against multiple threats?


I ask because I am always searching for answers that make sense. Too often, the answers I get to questions like those above are flawed presumptions about how "training can change" things that aren't going to change... at least not at the most critical ambush moments or testimonials about "What I can Do" (or the bastard stepchild "what **** can do"),  which mean little, if anything... and are always in training/practice environments or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. I'm hoping for more justification if anyone still thinks rehearsing transitions to another target area or another threat without what I believe to be a necessary pause and reset is a good idea.

-RJP