distance_changeup retweeted
Passar även på att puffa för att NI validerat sin uttagningsprocess med forskning med polisdoktorander precis som vi inom FM har försvarsmaktsdoktorander.
Läs gärna avhandlingen "Personnel selection in tactical intervention units".
nyheter.ki.se/avhandling-vis…
Läs gärna avhandlingen "Personnel selection in tactical intervention units".
nyheter.ki.se/avhandling-vis…
1
3
25
2,159
🧵Tror jag sett minst 5 tvärsäkra trådar om hur detta är bögarnas/mansidealet/Gen Z/värdegrunden/etc fel. Det kanske är en faktor 🤷♂️ Man ska ha klart för sig att det totala antalet personer som är lämpade för denna typ av tjänst eller motsvarigheten i FM alltid varit ytterst få.
7
3
42
6,914
3/ Samma i FM. Antalet särskilda enheter är mycket större än för kansle 15-20 år sedan och de konkurrerar ofta om exakt samma begränsade pool med människor. Många väljer då kanske en mindre prestigefylld enhet men som i gengäld är närmare hemorten.
2
0
10
892
4/ Detta är en svår ekvation att lösa och jag har absolut inget bra svar. Jag är dock ganska säker på att det inte är bögarnas fel.
1
0
25
779
distance_changeup retweeted
Detta är under all kritik. Vissa förband har en gedigen organisation för rehab och sjukvård. Andra får nöja sig med en sjukgymnast på 1000 pers och övrig hänvisning är vårdcentralen
Det är hysteriskt att försvarsmakten inte A) tecknat privata sjukvårdsförsärkingar för personalen B) har byggt egen parallel sjukvårdsaparat för att ta hand om personal
5
2
29
2,981
På samma sätt som många traditionella skyttar var anti rödpunkt på karbiner när det begav sig. Eller traditionella förare var anti bilen när den kom. Eller traditionella domare var anti att inte bränna häxor. Det är en icke-fråga. Rödpunkt på pistol är inte framtid, det är nutid
Red dot sights on handguns have become extremely popular for both duty and concealed carry. While they offer faster target acquisition, many traditional shooters still swear by iron sights for absolute simplicity and reliability. Are pistol red dots an essential modern upgrade, or just an overhyped gimmick?
2
3
34
1,651
distance_changeup retweeted
Low left sight return detected
Navy SEAL mods that will make you shoot faster. Full gear breakdown on YouTube. 🦂
youtu.be/AMy5bjZEWgI
9
3
222
25,726
distance_changeup retweeted
A big part of dry fire is learning to keep your grip 100% consistent as you sling the gun around quickly in transitions. A shift in grip pressure between your control and firing hands shifts your index (the dot doesn't appear where you look), changes how the gun returns after recoil, and makes it more likely that you'll shank the shot sideways when pulling the trigger.
It's most common that the shift is letting up with your control hand and tightening your firing hand. Sometimes it's letting up with both. Neither is good—consistency is what you're after.
Developing and evaluating this skill is easier in dry fire when the pistol isn't jumping around in your hands, but it's important to verify in live fire.
You can only pay attention to one thing while training. It's important to make this one of items you cycle through.
It's most common that the shift is letting up with your control hand and tightening your firing hand. Sometimes it's letting up with both. Neither is good—consistency is what you're after.
Developing and evaluating this skill is easier in dry fire when the pistol isn't jumping around in your hands, but it's important to verify in live fire.
You can only pay attention to one thing while training. It's important to make this one of items you cycle through.
0
1
16
842
distance_changeup retweeted
Skattebetalare! Denna vecka har dina pengar gått till att T-soldater ur Livgradesbrigaden kunnat genomföra skarpskjutning. Det har skjutits GRG, kulsprutor med mera. Allting lett och planerat av SOU-kadetter och nya fänrikar. #infanterism
45
21
511
26,758
distance_changeup retweeted
Accuracy is "final"... earlier accuracy means you live, they don't.
Hit Factor scoring treats all shots equally. First to last. But we'd all agree that actual gunfights reward earlier hits quite highly.
So while we do use HF and related metrics to guide overall marksmanship "test" skewing behavior we also devise a way to reward getting the first hit (or hits).
They are called "battles"... we divide the shooting tests into battles. These can be mano vs mano or unit vs unit.
We take test metrics and boil them down to:
- time to first lethal hit
- time to N subsequent stopping hits
- time to non-stopping hits
- performance variance in all of the above
We then, for each shooter or unit run hundreds of thousands of simulated fights (monte carlo simulations) for each battle in the test.
"Winning" means you killed ALL the other guys first. Casualty means you got hit while winning. Dead... you lose.
It turns hit factor scoring into a race to get early lethal hits. Exactly what we want to incentivize.
We run battles as part of post testing, generally against their pre-training, but also against collective metrics we've collected at a vast scale. We've also worked with SMEs to develop battle metrics for opponents (near peer, drugged up 3 time loser, etc...).
Each day we run millions of battles to update lethality leaderboard ranking units and individuals by how quickly they kill everybody else.
If you optimize for HF but not for early hits, you lose. Don't do that!
In these images I show an anonymized battle result of a recent training post-test. They did very well against the fleet. We also show their expected lifetime and the metrics that lead to their success. The final chart is how they performed when they won, and how they performed when they died.
If you want this for your org, LMK, happy to help.
Hit Factor scoring treats all shots equally. First to last. But we'd all agree that actual gunfights reward earlier hits quite highly.
So while we do use HF and related metrics to guide overall marksmanship "test" skewing behavior we also devise a way to reward getting the first hit (or hits).
They are called "battles"... we divide the shooting tests into battles. These can be mano vs mano or unit vs unit.
We take test metrics and boil them down to:
- time to first lethal hit
- time to N subsequent stopping hits
- time to non-stopping hits
- performance variance in all of the above
We then, for each shooter or unit run hundreds of thousands of simulated fights (monte carlo simulations) for each battle in the test.
"Winning" means you killed ALL the other guys first. Casualty means you got hit while winning. Dead... you lose.
It turns hit factor scoring into a race to get early lethal hits. Exactly what we want to incentivize.
We run battles as part of post testing, generally against their pre-training, but also against collective metrics we've collected at a vast scale. We've also worked with SMEs to develop battle metrics for opponents (near peer, drugged up 3 time loser, etc...).
Each day we run millions of battles to update lethality leaderboard ranking units and individuals by how quickly they kill everybody else.
If you optimize for HF but not for early hits, you lose. Don't do that!
In these images I show an anonymized battle result of a recent training post-test. They did very well against the fleet. We also show their expected lifetime and the metrics that lead to their success. The final chart is how they performed when they won, and how they performed when they died.
If you want this for your org, LMK, happy to help.
3
3
20
668
distance_changeup retweeted
This is how I’d recommend zeroing a red dot on an AR if you want a precise zero that will help you make hits out at 300+ yards.
Take as much of yourself out of the equation as possible. Pick your zero distance to maximize point blank range. 36 yards works well on most ARs.
Use a contrasting target and aiming point like white paper and a black circle or paster.
Use a solid rest, bipod and rear bag, rest across sand bags or a range bag. Go prone or use a bench and get a repeatable cheek weld to the stock.
Shoot three to five rounds to make sure you’re on paper and in the ball park, (if you’re not, move closer) and then make a coarse adjustment to get close. Fire a five shot group the best you can and then measure from the center of the group to your aiming point and make your adjustment. 1/2 MOA clicks are about 3/16” at 36 yards.
Fire a ten shot group to confirm and if you need to, make another adjustment.
Next move to 100 yards, again with a target with a contrasting aiming point just big enough to see and aim at at that distance and preferably with an actual vertical line running up the center of the target from the aiming point.
Fire another ten shot group and measure from the center of the group over to the vertical line and make your windage adjustment to center it on the line if needed, if not, you’re done.
If you made an adjustment, fire a final ten shot group to confirm it’s centered on the line as close as you can get it.
Turning down the brightness on your dot to where you can just see it helps refine the aiming point.
Give your barrel some time to cool between groups, don’t rush it.
Get your elevation correct at 36 yards and your windage correct at 100.
It probably seems like a lot of work and a lot of rounds compared to what most people do but it really pays off as distances and shot difficulty increase.
Take as much of yourself out of the equation as possible. Pick your zero distance to maximize point blank range. 36 yards works well on most ARs.
Use a contrasting target and aiming point like white paper and a black circle or paster.
Use a solid rest, bipod and rear bag, rest across sand bags or a range bag. Go prone or use a bench and get a repeatable cheek weld to the stock.
Shoot three to five rounds to make sure you’re on paper and in the ball park, (if you’re not, move closer) and then make a coarse adjustment to get close. Fire a five shot group the best you can and then measure from the center of the group to your aiming point and make your adjustment. 1/2 MOA clicks are about 3/16” at 36 yards.
Fire a ten shot group to confirm and if you need to, make another adjustment.
Next move to 100 yards, again with a target with a contrasting aiming point just big enough to see and aim at at that distance and preferably with an actual vertical line running up the center of the target from the aiming point.
Fire another ten shot group and measure from the center of the group over to the vertical line and make your windage adjustment to center it on the line if needed, if not, you’re done.
If you made an adjustment, fire a final ten shot group to confirm it’s centered on the line as close as you can get it.
Turning down the brightness on your dot to where you can just see it helps refine the aiming point.
Give your barrel some time to cool between groups, don’t rush it.
Get your elevation correct at 36 yards and your windage correct at 100.
It probably seems like a lot of work and a lot of rounds compared to what most people do but it really pays off as distances and shot difficulty increase.
25
27
575
32,828
distance_changeup retweeted
It's difficult to explain to the casual observer how significant a shift this is.
Hit factor scoring is an objective measure of speed and accuracy, the two variables that predict gunfight outcomes.
Hit factor scoring is an objective measure of speed and accuracy, the two variables that predict gunfight outcomes.
In 2020 we set about to bring hit factor scoring to the USMC.
We now measure, using time/accuracy, the entire USMC entry pipeline (enlisted, officer & warrant).
This FY we will move that to the fleet Infantry & then the entire fleet.
Hit Factor and other metrics roll back into traaining & they get better & better & better...
Marines, now, are a LOT more lethal with their rifles than Marines of 2020.
Dream big, work hard, & you can just do things...
Next up... Army & a very large federal police agency.
4
8
80
6,051
distance_changeup retweeted
Advancing organizational marksmanship skills is built on advancing personal skills. Organizations need training plans, "what to work on", "what to sustain".
For the USMC we divide the hit factor testing into 5 areas - zero + 4 tests doing yardage and skills needed in an defense with ranges from 3 to 300 yards.
We divide those skills up into 6 areas + zero and rate every individual and unit (squad, platoon, company, battalion, class, school, division and service-wide) relative to the best that has done the test.
The 1st image is part of a Marine shooters report card, where they are rated on 6 aggregate skills. This shooter is good at first shots, not so good at reloading and transitions and recoil mgt.
We then look at where time went (2nd image). Green is in standard, red past standard. Here you can see, visually, that indeed they are slow/variable on splits (probably a stance problem), and also on reloads.
The 50% reference is basically 50% of what grandmasters who shot this with service rifles, in full kit, did it over a series of tests to see what "great" was. Everything is compared to "best".
Each person and unit gets this, along with an AI summary I don't show here. And in many cases an evaluation by me or one of our other SMEs on specific issues we see w/ recommendations.
You get better by measuring and REACTING to what you learn. These show, in a glance, a training plan.
For the USMC we divide the hit factor testing into 5 areas - zero + 4 tests doing yardage and skills needed in an defense with ranges from 3 to 300 yards.
We divide those skills up into 6 areas + zero and rate every individual and unit (squad, platoon, company, battalion, class, school, division and service-wide) relative to the best that has done the test.
The 1st image is part of a Marine shooters report card, where they are rated on 6 aggregate skills. This shooter is good at first shots, not so good at reloading and transitions and recoil mgt.
We then look at where time went (2nd image). Green is in standard, red past standard. Here you can see, visually, that indeed they are slow/variable on splits (probably a stance problem), and also on reloads.
The 50% reference is basically 50% of what grandmasters who shot this with service rifles, in full kit, did it over a series of tests to see what "great" was. Everything is compared to "best".
Each person and unit gets this, along with an AI summary I don't show here. And in many cases an evaluation by me or one of our other SMEs on specific issues we see w/ recommendations.
You get better by measuring and REACTING to what you learn. These show, in a glance, a training plan.
3
6
25
1,130