Train To The Standard – Forward Observer Shop

Train To The Standard

“Training without standards is not training. It’s playing games.”

Whether you are concerned with resisting the tyranny of the government, or simply helping your tribe survive the continuing collapse of the social fabric of America, you know you need to be training. Combat shooting with pistol and rifle, combatives, small-unit tactics, trauma medicine; it all needs to be trained. How do we determine if our training is effective? How do we know if we’re “good enough”?

The simplest answer is, until you hear the snap of the first round ripping past your head, you don’t. It’s that simple. What you can do however, is look at the experiences of those who have been and done, and develop performance metrics based on what worked for them. These are what we refer to as standards.

Anyone who has actually been training for any length of time wants to know about standards. From the Appleseed metric of a 4MOA capability at 500 meters, to passing an Army Physical Fitness Test with a score of XXX points, people want to know how well they’re performing. I’ve been asked numerous times by readers, “John, what standards should I strive for?”

People read my articles and books and jump to the conclusion that, if they cannot bench press 300 pounds, squat 400, and run a 300 meter shuttle run in less than one minute, then I am telling them they will die in their very first gun fight. The reality is, nothing could be further from the truth. Those are all good standards to aim to achieve, but none of those would be standards I would prescribe to anyone. Why not?

Because they are utterly irrelevant. They are what we call “outcome standards.” I believe in “performance standards.” What’s the difference, and why do I dislike outcome standards? Let’s look at an example:

Instructor X has a set of standards he believes a shooter should be able to achieve. Among these, let us say, is a standard requirement to shoot an E-type silhouette at 100 meters in five seconds. This standard allows for time to get into the prone position, find a sight picture, and squeeze the trigger to achieve an accurate enough shot. It’s actually not a bad time standard for a shot either. Most people would be—in my experience—hard pressed to achieve that consistently, on demand. So, what’s the problem?

As I write this, yesterday I shot a C-Zone steel plate (considerably smaller than an E-Type silhouette), at 100M, from the standing, in 0.94 seconds (and for the record, there were witnesses). Granted, that was my fastest time of the day for that shot. Most however, were between that and 1.20 seconds. From the standing, at 100M. I didn’t have to take the time to get into the prone to get a hit. What if I’d been satisfied with shooting a full-size E-Type? Could I have made a legitimate half-second shot?

Last week, we ran a drill, from the standing, at 100 meters, drop to the prone, and get a hit on a C-Zone steel plate. My best time of the day was 2.14 seconds. All of my repetitions took me less than 3.00 seconds, and the vast majority were less than 2.5 seconds. Suddenly, five seconds seems like a lifetime, doesn’t it? Does this mean we should change the time standard to three seconds?


Outcome-based standards like this, are the equivalent of standardized testing in grade school. Does standardized testing have a place and a valid function? Absolutely. However, it is not indicative of a student’s value or learning ability. It is a measure of a performing monkey. The same applies to outcome-based training for what we do.

How far should you be able to shoot? As far as you are capable of getting hits. How fast should you be able to shoot? As fast as you are able. How strong should you be? As strong as you can be.

How do we improve then? How do we establish metrics, to allow us to know if we’re “good enough?” We use performance-based standards. Look at the “performance standards” in a US Army training manual. Outside of the Marksmanship manuals (and according to a friend currently helping to re-write that manual, this is changing), they generally do not prescribe outcome-based training standards, they prescribe performance standards.

You can do the same thing in your training. You can even use external metrics to determine improvement, while you’re doing it. What do I mean?

We need to determine how good we need to be. How good is that? For better or worse, you need to be as good as you can be. I guarantee you, if you are willing to believe in yourself, and push yourself in your training, that is far, far better than you know. It’s certainly better than you are now. Until yesterday, I’d never have believed I could make a sub-1:00 second hit, at 100 meters, from the standing! Now? I’m wondering if I can break the half-second mark.

Shooting Metrics for Performance Standards

There are only two metrics that matter in combat shooting. Those are accuracy and speed.

It doesn’t matter if you use “practical shooting” competition-derived shooting methods like I do, or you use traditional National Match marksmanship shooting methods. What matters is, can you shoot fast enough and accurately enough to be as good as you need to?

Wyatt Earp supposedly said “fast is fine, but accuracy is final.” It’s true as well. No one ever missed fast enough to win a gun fight. However, a shot that hits, three seconds after the bad guy shot you in the face, is probably not going to do you much good, is it? We need to find a way to balance those two metrics.

This is why you will never see me shooting a full-size E-Type silhouette in a training course, and I don’t let students shoot full-size E-Type silhouettes in training courses. There are only three types of targets I recommend for combat marksmanship training. These are C-Zone steel plates, 6-8 inch steel plates, and silhouette targets with the vital regions of the human body marked. These smaller targets—especially past the 7-10 meter ranges typical in contemporary “tactical” shooting courses—will FORCE you to exercise your fundamentals properly. Bad execution of the fundamentals will result in misses on a 6-8” steel plate at 100 meters, regardless of how long you take to get the shot.

At faster speeds, even a C-Zone steel will be impossible to get hits on at that distance, unless you execute the fundamentals properly. In order to get hits on these targets—an outcome standard—you will have to execute the fundamentals properly—a performance standard. Now, we can add a time metric, to measure actual improvement.

If it took you 5:45 seconds to get a hit on a C-Zone steel at 100 meters last week, but this week, you managed it in 5:00 seconds even, guess what? You’ve improved. You’re more dangerous now than you were last week. In two weeks, if you manage it in 4:00 seconds, you’re still improving. THAT is all that matters.
Sure, I can do it in less than 1:00 second, but guess what? If you’re getting a 5:00 second time, my sub-one second time is completely irrelevant to you. There’s no way you’re going to match it, let alone beat it—yet. But, if you shave half-a-second off your performance each week, while executing the fundamentals properly every time, it’s not going to take you very long to catch up, is it?

It doesn’t have to be a half-second improvement. I am—and every serious shooter I know is—happy if I see a 0.1 second improvement from month-to-month. I’ll even settle for a 0.01 second improvement. If you’re improving, you’re becoming more dangerous. When I left the Army, I’m not sure I could have hit a C-Zone at 100 meters from the standing in less than 10 seconds. I just never allowed myself to stop improving. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Can I actually break a half-second? I don’t know. Maybe not. But I’ll keep trying. I’ll also work on improving my accuracy metric though. Now, I’m going to try matching that 0.94 time, shooting a 6” steel plate. Initially, I won’t be close. It’ll probably take me anywhere from 4-6 seconds. But, by tightening up my execution of the fundamentals even tighter, and pushing myself to go faster while I do so, I will get there—eventually.

Physical Fitness Standards

Over the course of writing the Mountain Guerrilla blog, my book The Reluctant Partisan, and for Forward Observer, I’ve received a lot of negative commentary from people who feel attacked by my constant emphasis on elite fitness levels for survival. Ironically, it is always someone who has an excuse for being fat and lazy. It’s never the guy who’s actually in the gym, doing work, who complains. Even when my training recommendations seem borderline insane, the guys doing the work never complain.
The reason is, they understand the difference between outcome-based standards and performance-based standards. It doesn’t matter how much you lift. It matters that you lift correctly—which will keep you from getting hurt—and that you lift progressively heavier. If you’re doing a metabolic-conditioning workout like a Crossfit-style WOD? Then the metric that matters is that you accomplish it a little faster than you did the last time you did…while still performing your exercises properly.

How fast do you need to be able to run? How far away is your cover? I can hit a C-Zone at 100 meters in less than a second. Will it take me an extra half-second to hit it moving? Maybe, but maybe not, since it’ll be a bigger target (after all, I don’t have to hit you in the vitals to stop you or slow you down….I can do that after I slow you down). How far away is your cover? You better be able to get there faster than I can notice you’re moving, and then shoot you. It’s that simple. You need to run faster than you did last time you ran.

You don’t need to be a power lifter. You do need to power lift. You don’t need to be a sprinter. You do need to be able to sprint.

Tactical Skills

Whether it’s Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TC3), small-unit tactics (SUT), or land navigation, outcome-based standards can be particularly difficult to develop. Of course, with land nav, it’s as simple as “did you get where you were going?” Even that however, is really a performance objective, because if you’re running a real land navigation course, and you perform anything incorrectly, guess what? You won’t get where you’re going.

Fortunately, for each of these, we KNOW what our standards should be. They are clearly outlined in the Task-Conditions-Standards statement of any particular skill. Once you can perform them to the published performance standards, there’s really only one metric that you can change for improvement: speed.

You know how to put on a tourniquet properly? Great? How long did it take you? Forty-five seconds? Now, aim to get it in 44 seconds. Then 43 seconds.

Speed Is Not The Standard

Using speed as a metric tends to lead people to believe that speed is the standard. This is not the case. Proper performance of the skill is the standard. Speed simply gives us a metric to measure improved skill in performing the skill. If you can cut five seconds off your time practicing “move under direct fire” for 100 meters, but your 3-5 second rushes were extended to 5-10 seconds each, you’ve failed to meet the standard. On the other hand, dropping even half of a second off your time, but executing everything according to the performance standards means you’ve improved, because now, you can perform the same skill faster. Speed is not the standard. It is a metric to measure improvement of the standard.


Training without standards is not training. It’s playing games. Everyone wants to know standards. How fast should I be able to shoot? How accurately should I be able to shoot? How far should I be able to shoot? A lot of whiners within the preparedness culture have tried to take me to task for sharing the fact that you need to be an elitist in your training. They claim that I want people to be bad ass SOF supermen. This is completely, utterly wrong.

I am not a bad ass because I was a SOF soldier. A dear friend of mine has been an adjunct instructor at Gunsite for over twenty years. Among his friends and professional contacts are a lot of my fellow SOF veterans—some still serving—from across all branches of service. We were discussing my performance standards today…and the fact that I meet and exceed my own standards.

“John, you do realize, don’t you? You’re exceptional, even for an SF guy.”

I’m not a bad ass because I was a SOF soldier. Neither the Ranger Regiment nor Special Forces made me a bad ass. They gave me the tools to become a bad ass, but they didn’t make me a bad ass. When I left the service, twelve years ago, there is no way I was capable of hitting a C-Zone steel from the standing, at 100 meters in less than one second. If I could have hit it from the standing position—at all—it would have taken me at least 6-7 seconds or longer. I’m not a bad ass because I was SOF.

I’m a bad ass, because I refuse to rest on my laurels, or accept that there are limits. “Good enough” does not exist in my training vocabulary. I train to the standard, every time that I train. What standard? The only standard that matters. The standard of being better than I was last time.

A Standards Prescription

I’m sure a few people at least, either hoped—or dreaded—that I would include a set of standards to aim for within this article.

Fear not, I have:

Shooting Standards

The only shooting metrics that matter are accuracy and speed. The standard is: You need to shoot faster and/or more accurately than you did yesterday. Tomorrow, you need to shoot faster and/or more accurately than you do today.

PT Standards
There are three basic metrics I am interested in, for PT: strength, speed, and endurance. Here are the metrics for each:


You need to be able to lift heavier weights today than you did yesterday. Tomorrow, you need to be able to lift heavier weights than you can today.


You need to be able to move faster today—at any distance—than you did yesterday at the same distance. You need to be able to move faster tomorrow—at any distance—than you can today at the same distance.


You need to be able to last longer today than you did yesterday. You need to be able to last longer tomorrow than you can today.

John Mosby is a former U.S. Army Special Operations soldier. He lives somewhere in the mountains.


  1. Training to a standard of continued improvement does make a lot of sense as private individuals and group training is not like a school standard of pass or fail it’s just about being the best you can be. Which through consistent training gets better. Plus the goal of the training is reflected in a persons mission not in meeting a minimum standard to join an organization. Although, the article is about being tactically ready, time should be spent getting to know your rights, learning how local, state and federal government works, who makes up the deep state, what is their local agenda.

    Surviving the collapse of society or the communist take over of the American govt is about knowing and being able to do enough to get to the end game.

  2. Yep what you said, the MC set outcome standards for marksmanship and for 4 out of 5 times in qualifying I did not set any performance standards and my marksmanship sucked, badly. Last trip to the range I set my mind to better performance and with a new A2 rifle I easily bested my past wastes of time and got to wear a spiffier looking badge on my way out the door.

    But shooting skills perish and when I decided to take up big game hunting I was back to woeful, so I implemented what I thought to be performance standards thousands of rounds later I could honestly say, ” I shoot, animal falls down in a humane as possible kill.” Domestication ensues, back to woeful, back to the range and then venison in freezer and mounts on the wall.

  3. I think some folks will feel uncomforable with fuzzy standards like ‘do better than you did yesterday’ or ‘do the best you can’. They feel much more comforable with a set standard because a) it’s a way to compare yourself to other guys and b) because it sets an upper bound, at which you no longer need to work to improve because you’ve hit the max.
    Using fuzzy standards, there is no top (there are plateaus though), so you always have to improve, and that requires a ton of dedication and work.
    It seems to me that the fuzzy standard is important for preppers/patriots because age and physical condition varies so wildly within the communities. Giving an obese guy who hasn’t PT’d in years a standard of running a 6-minute mile is going to kill his motivation because that goal is so far removed from his near-term reality. Giving him the standard that he has to do a little better every day is an ACHIEVABLE near-term standard for anyone, regardless of current ability. It’s perfect.

  4. Whats the first rule of Crossfit? Seriously though, I have only been involved with it for 3 1/2 months, but Crossfit is a perfect example of what you have spelled out above. With the rare exception of partner WOD’s, you are competing against yourself. The “outcome standard” is to show up and complete the WOD (utilizing correct movements), the “performance standard” is to complete more reps, faster time, unbroken, as prescribed… Spartan Monkey – I resemble that remark and you are exactly right, but that is what is so great about Crossfit, you don’t have to run a 6 minute mile, you just have to run a mile and run it faster each time.
    This is no different than in business. If you try to just meet “budget” or just sell x… then you will not be around long. You don’t necessarily have to get better from day to day (there will be bad days, weeks, months, quarters, etc.) but your trend has to be upward bound.
    Thanks John, awesome article.

  5. I started practicing rucking to my fitness routine and its a great way to kill two birds with one stone, by exercising my high strung German Shepherd. I’m 48 years old and have been humping Alice pack with 50 lbs. steel plates wrapped in towels inside pack. This morning did 4 miles 60 minutes total time (including 3 pretty steep hills). Reading your blog and book, standards talk of between 12 to 15 minutes per mile carrying loaded ruck, is that rucking standard, based on moving strictly flat ground?

  6. I love your no BS straight forward approach when you write articles, and you even have time to throw in some humor. Reading your article is what got me off my fat ass. Now I’m that guy who can bench 300 and squat 400+ by merely holding myself accountable, setting training standards and just doing the dam work every other day. and every time I hit a plateau, or am not making the par time on the shot timer the last paragraph on one of your articles runs through my head. something to the effect of those who don’t put in the work may suffer the fate of being taken away while hearing your wife and children screaming from inside your home. Thanks for all that you and the guys at FO do and keep up the good work!

  7. As far as PT goes, how do you feel about pull-ups, push-ups, etc…? I only have a few light weights at the house and am not able to get to a gym that often, so I work out at home and the park around the corner. At home, I use makeshift weights sometimes, but I mostly rely on body weight. If I can do more push-ups today than yesterday, is that enough or do I NEED to be using weights?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *