Designing courses of fire is a very personal thing. We often fault police and other agencies for having unrealistic qualification requirements, but how do our own methods stack up? For example, is firing at a high-contrast bullseye at 100 measured yards a good indicator of how our guns would fare on a hunt or in combat. Here's an en example of a marksmanship test that helps sharpen multiple skills. It works particularly well on ranges with grass rather than concrete.
Why does this drill work so well? For one, you have a low contrast target, brown against brown, tan and green backdrop. That's reasonably similar to a camouflaged foe, as the age of the bright uniforms has long passed. Grocery bags are good approximations of a torso in size. Unknown distance that has to be estimated or ranged is another real-world problem. The shooters are under a time pressure and have to choose between shooting rapidly and aiming more accurately. At over a hundred yards, most cannot make out holes in paper, so there's no certainty of having scored a hit. Calling a hit without getting one loses the competition. Hitting the target but not calling it before the other shooter also loses it, provided the other competitor got a hit as well.
More @ Cheaper Than Dirt