Close-quarters battle (CQB) training is one of the most controversial topics in tactical training. It’s a lightning rod for debates, with people emotionally tied to specific techniques and end states often ignoring foundational principles. Many need a clearer understanding of basic tactics, the roles and responsibilities of the rifle team, and how CQB fits into the broader framework of movement to contact. Here’s an in-depth look at the issues with CQB training and actionable ways to improve it.

CQB as Movement to Contact

At its core, CQB is a movement to contact in a confined space. It’s not a standalone skill but a subset of broader tactics. The goal is simple: detect the target before it detects you, fix it in place, and maneuver while maintaining security. This means:

1. Moving with speed, stealth, and security.
2. Ensuring the target cannot attack from unexpected angles or avenues of approach.
3. Applying deliberate aggression upon contact.

If your team is receiving contact, mistakes were likely made earlier. Effective movement-to-contact requires treating the building like terrain and prioritizing point-to-point (room-by-room) movement over rigid techniques.

Why Control Tactics Matter

CQB is inherently a high-risk task, which is made riskier because not everyone in the building can—or should—be shot. The team enters the structure instead of destroying it because some individuals must be handled differently. This means team members must:

• Be proficient in basic control tactics to handle combative or panicking individuals effectively.
• Assume any individual might be armed and act accordingly(close the distance and gain a dominant position) while maintaining the ability to escalate or de-escalate force as needed.

One of the most significant issues with introducing combatant role players in training—whether as shooters or fighters—is the tendency for team members to break security to engage.

The result? The entire team loses its position and violates the principle of security. We must trust that each team member can handle a combative individual independently. They must have the skills to “fuck up one dude” without requiring assistance, ensuring the rest of the team stays focused on their roles.

The Importance of Weapons Handling

One of the most glaring issues in CQB training is a lack of focus on weapons handling and shooting fundamentals. Many team members enter force-on-force scenarios without mastering the basics of static marksmanship, transitions, or safe manipulation under pressure. This leads to:

• Ineffective engagements.
• Unsafe weapon handling.
• Poor accountability for shots fired.

Instead of jumping into scenarios, teams should build their foundation through structured dry fire and live fire progressions.

Suggested Weekly Dry Fire Progression (Shoothouse Warm-Up)

1. Up Drills:
   • Start from low or high ready.
   • Begin untimed, focusing on mechanics.
   • Progress to timed drills with descending standards.
2. Bar Hops (Forward/Back/Side):
   • Step over a line while engaging targets.
   • Options:
     • Engage one target with two presses before and after the hop.
     • Engage two targets with transitions before and after the hop.
   • Start untimed, then add a timer with descending standards.

This progression is cheap and efficient, requiring some visible tape and a par timer that you can download on your phone. It ensures that weapons handling becomes subconscious, allowing team members to focus on movement, decision-making, and engagement.

Scoring, Accountability, and Competition

Force-on-force training often needs more accountability. Hits aren’t scored, times need to be documented, and the focus is on completing the scenario rather than improving performance.

Adding target scoring can address these gaps. It will also organically produce metrics for evaluating high and low performers. The high performers receiving praise or special recognition will also create a competition of sorts and group value for competent weapon handling at the organizational level.

Scoring System for CQB Training

1. Finishing Hits: Accurate, decisive shots that neutralize the target.
2. Diminishing Hits: Less effective shots that partially incapacitate the target.
3. Penalties for Misses: Encourage accountability and discourage reckless shooting.
4. Shooting Non-Combatants: Automatic failure for the entire team. Provide corrective training as needed.

Combine this with timed evaluations for clearing structures and use the time as a simple metric instead of a standard. This transforms training into a measurable, competitive event, driving performance and encouraging team members to innovate techniques. Furthermore, mechanical skills benefit all other contextual applications.

However, instructors must ensure that the training remains grounded in real-world applications.

Improving Marksmanship Standards

Another central area for improvement in CQB training is marksmanship qualification standards. Many organizations allow team members to qualify with as little as 60% accuracy. This is unacceptable in environments where precision is critical. A spectrum of skill levels within the group produces safety hazards to the team and the public, threatening overall mission success.

Proposed Marksmanship Standards

• Require 90% or better accuracy.
• Focus on engaging precise points on the target rather than general areas.

This simple change ensures team members and their instructors or trainers know they can reliably hit what they aim at. It also prevents the spray-and-pray mentality that leads to collateral damage or any other unintended consequences in real-world scenarios.

Just because the driver is in the vehicle doesn’t mean we should shoot the entire vehicle. Focus on the driver.

The Role of Time and Aggression

Time is a critical factor in CQB. Once the element of surprise is lost, speed and aggression must take precedence to regain the initiative. Teams should:

• Treat all walls as concealment, not cover.
• Move aggressively but accountably, minimizing the time spent in vulnerable positions.

By emphasizing time-based documentation and aggressive movement, teams can better adapt to the realities of CQB environments.

The Problem with Deliberate Clearing

Slow, deliberate clearing is often perceived as a safe and systematic approach. However, it can backfire in real-world environments. The moment a target knows your team’s position, they can:

• Hold their position and fire through walls, especially in structures made of sheetrock.
• Exploit the expanded fatal funnel, which extends far beyond the doorways and hallways most think of.
• Channel the team into predictable lines of fire.

Walls in most structures provide concealment, not cover, and treating them as such fundamentally changes how a team should operate. A deliberate approach often gives the target time to react, making things far more dangerous for the team.

Simulation tools like UTM or simunitions fail to reinforce this because they don’t penetrate walls, masking this critical reality.

The solution? Encourage aggressive, time-efficient movement while maintaining accountability for actions. Time documentation and hit scoring can provide measurable metrics to evaluate performance and emphasize the importance of moving purposefully.

The team can do that if the contextual application requires slowing down since the training is fast and aggressive. It is generally much easier to slow down while maintaining accountability than to speed up with accountability.

Why This Matters

Many will ask: Who are you to critique CQB training? My answer is simple: I don’t claim to have HVT experience, but I’ve seen enough to recognize critical flaws in current training. Dismissing valid points based on the messenger misses the mark. Instead, the focus should be on addressing these issues to improve outcomes.

Inadequate training reinforced by fortuitous results is a recipe for disaster. Success without resistance only reinforces bad habits and ineffective techniques. By focusing on measurable, repeatable performance metrics, we can create training that prepares team members for the real-world complexities of CQB.

Conclusion

Improving CQB training requires a shift from rigid techniques to adaptable, principle-based frameworks. This starts with a demand for a high degree of skill and ability in the core skills associated with it.

Improving CQB training requires:

1. Treating CQB as a movement to contact, focusing on speed, stealth, and security.
2. Mastering weapons handling, shooting, and combatives fundamentals through structured progressions.
3. Scoring hits, tracking times, and introducing competitive elements.
4. Raising marksmanship standards to 90% or better accuracy.
5. Emphasizing control tactics for dealing with combative or panicking individuals without compromising team security.
6. Treating walls as concealment, not cover, and adapting tactics accordingly.

CQB training isn’t about looking good on paper or video—it’s about preparing teams to handle the complexities of real-world engagements. By addressing these gaps, we can build training programs that are safer, more effective, and better aligned with job demands.