20+ years | UK Counter Terrorism | British Army
Non Lethal Training has supplied and supported force-on-force training systems for professional organisations across the UK and internationally.
Key Points
- Close quarter battle (CQB) training demands equipment that is safe at genuine contact distance — the point at which most operational engagements actually occur.
- Gas blowback training weapons and marking rounds allow realistic shoot/don’t-shoot decision-making indoors, without a live-fire range.
- Selection turns on four factors: minimum safe engagement distance, weapon realism, protective equipment burden, and running cost per session.
- UK units should specify systems that align with NPCC and Home Office guidance and can be run inside an existing building or training house.
Close quarter battle is where firearms training is hardest to replicate and where getting it wrong carries the greatest operational cost. A room entry, a stairwell contact, or a vehicle extraction unfolds at distances measured in feet, not metres — and the decisions that decide the outcome are made in fractions of a second. Live-fire ranges cannot rehearse those decisions safely, because they cannot put a thinking adversary in the room. For more than twenty years, Non Lethal Training has supplied force-on-force systems to UK Counter Terrorism units, the British Army, and international security organisations for exactly this problem: giving instructors the tools to run realistic, reactive CQB training without a live weapon.
The equipment you choose determines what your instructors can actually rehearse. The wrong system forces artificial stand-off distances, heavy protective kit, or a running cost that limits repetition. The right system lets students make and pay for real decisions at real distance. This guide covers the equipment categories used for CQB training in the UK, how to compare them, and how to specify a system that fits your unit and facility.
Building a CQB training capability?
Speak to our training team about your unit’s specific requirements.
What Makes CQB Training Equipment Different
Most firearms training equipment is designed around distance. Marksmanship, positional shooting, and even standard scenario work assume an engagement distance of several metres. Close quarter battle inverts that assumption. Contact happens at the doorway, across a small room, or hand-on-weapon. The equipment therefore has to satisfy a demanding and slightly contradictory set of requirements at the same time.
First, it must be safe at genuine contact distance. A system with a five-metre minimum engagement distance is of limited use for a discipline defined by sub-two-metre contacts. Second, it must be realistic in the hand — weight, trigger, manual of arms, and reload should mirror the duty weapon closely enough that muscle memory transfers. Third, it must produce a clear consequence when a round strikes, so that both the student and the instructor know, unambiguously, who was hit. Marking rounds and kinetic impact projectiles supply that feedback; the pain penalty and visible mark are what drive genuine behaviour rather than “laser tag” complacency.
Finally, it has to be repeatable at low cost. CQB competence is built through volume — dozens of room entries, not three. A system that costs several pounds per round quietly caps the number of repetitions a unit can afford, which is the single most common way training budgets undermine the training they fund.
The Main Equipment Categories for CQB
Four broad categories dominate close quarter force-on-force training in the UK. Each occupies a different point on the trade-off between realism, safety distance, and cost.
Gas blowback training weapons
Purpose-built gas blowback (GBB) training weapons are the workhorse of modern CQB training. They cycle a working slide or bolt, deliver felt recoil, and replicate the duty weapon’s controls closely — magazine changes, malfunction drills, and holster work all transfer. Because they fire a light 6mm projectile at controlled energy, they are safe for force-on-force engagement at genuine CQB distance with appropriate face and eye protection. For units that need decision-making realism inside a building, GBB systems offer the best balance of fidelity, safety, and running cost. This is the category most closely aligned with Non Lethal Training’s force-on-force training systems.
Marking-cartridge conversion systems
Conversion systems replace part of a real firearm — typically the barrel and magazine — so that a service weapon fires a marking cartridge instead of live ammunition. Simunition and UTM are the best-known examples. They deliver excellent weapon fidelity because the student uses their own duty pistol or carbine. The trade-off is a higher minimum safe engagement distance, a substantial per-round cost, and the logistical and armoury burden of converting and de-converting real weapons before and after every serial.
Kinetic impact and rubber projectile systems
Rubber and plastic projectile systems, and attenuating energy projectiles, are used where a heavier impact signature is required or where the training mirrors a specific less-lethal capability. They are more specialised than general CQB force-on-force and usually appear alongside dedicated less-lethal training rather than as the primary room-clearance tool.
Blank-firing and pyrotechnic aids
Blank-firing adaptors, distraction devices, and training pyrotechnics do not deliver a marking round, but they add the noise, smoke, and disorientation that make CQB realistic. Used correctly, they raise stress inoculation and force students to make decisions under sensory load. They complement, rather than replace, a marking system.
Evaluating CQB systems for your unit?
Our team can provide a full product demonstration and a cost breakdown for your specific training requirements and facility.
CQB Training Systems Compared
The table below compares the practical characteristics that matter most when equipment is used inside a building at close range. Figures are indicative and should be verified against manufacturer data and your own risk assessment.
| Criterion | Gas Blowback Training Weapon | Marking-Cartridge Conversion |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum safe engagement distance | Effectively zero-metre with correct PPE — true contact CQB | Typically a metre or more; manufacturer-set minimum |
| Cost per round | Fractions of a penny (roughly 700 BBs to one marking round) | Several pounds per cartridge |
| Weapon realism | High — working slide/bolt, recoil, duty controls | Very high — student’s own converted duty weapon |
| Conversion / armoury burden | None — dedicated training weapon | Convert and de-convert real weapons each serial |
| Hit feedback | Clear sting and impact; marking variants available | Marking paint plus firm impact |
| Facility requirement | Any building or training house — no live range | Dedicated force-on-force area with distance control |
| Repetition affordability | High — supports large-volume room entries | Limited by per-round cost |
The decisive line for close quarter work is the first one. The ability to run a safe, near zero-metre engagement is what allows a student to make a genuine contact-distance decision — a weapon retention struggle, a doorway surprise, a hostage in the line — rather than an artificially spaced approximation of one. That capability is the core reason gas blowback systems have become the default for realistic CQB decision-making in the UK.
UK Regulatory and Doctrine Considerations
Close quarter force-on-force training in the UK is shaped by national guidance on use of force and less-lethal capability rather than by a single statute. The NPCC and the College of Policing set the framework for authorised firearms and public-order training, and the Home Office’s approach to less-lethal weapons informs how capabilities are assessed and adopted. Instructors specifying CQB equipment should ensure their programme design, protective equipment standards, and system selection are consistent with current NPCC guidance and their own force or unit policy.
On the equipment itself, sub-threshold training weapons that fire a low-energy projectile are treated differently in law from Section 1 and Section 5 firearms, and from air weapons. The Violent Crime Reduction Act governs the sale and supply of realistic imitation firearms but provides defences relevant to Crown and policing use. This is general guidance, not legal advice — always verify the current position against Home Office and NPCC documentation and take your own legal and armoury advice before procurement. What matters operationally is that a well-specified CQB system can be run compliantly inside an ordinary building, which is precisely what makes it cost-effective.
How to Select the Right CQB System
Work through four questions in order. What distance do you actually train at? If your programme is built around room entry and contact-distance decision-making, prioritise the lowest safe minimum engagement distance — this is where gas blowback systems separate from conversion systems. What weapon must it replicate? If duty-weapon fidelity is paramount and budget allows, a conversion system on the student’s own weapon has an edge; if transferable manual-of-arms on a dedicated platform is enough, GBB gives you most of the benefit at a fraction of the cost.
What is your facility? A unit without a dedicated force-on-force range needs a system that runs in an existing building or a purpose-built training house — a decision that steers most UK units toward low-energy marking systems. And what volume can you sustain? Multiply your realistic annual round count by cost per round; the difference between fractions of a penny and several pounds compounds quickly and often decides how much genuine repetition your students actually get. Non Lethal Training’s bespoke training and facility services can help you match the system to the building and the budget, and our twenty-plus years supporting UK CT units and the British Army means the recommendation is grounded in operational use, not a catalogue.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the safest system for genuine contact-distance CQB training?
Purpose-built gas blowback training weapons firing a low-energy 6mm projectile are the category most units adopt for true close quarter work, because they can be used safely at effectively zero-metre engagement distance with correct face and eye protection. Marking-cartridge conversion systems deliver excellent weapon fidelity but carry a manufacturer-set minimum engagement distance that is less suited to sub-two-metre contacts. The right choice depends on your distances, but for room entry and weapon-retention scenarios, the ability to engage safely at contact distance is usually the deciding factor.
How does the running cost of CQB training equipment compare?
The gap is large and it compounds. Low-energy training projectiles cost fractions of a penny — as a rule of thumb, around 700 BBs equate to the cost of a single marking cartridge, which can run to several pounds. Over a training year of high-volume room entries, that difference determines how many repetitions a unit can afford. Because CQB competence is built through volume rather than one-off exposure, cost per round has a direct effect on training quality, not just on the budget line.
Is close quarter force-on-force training compliant with UK guidance?
Yes, when it is designed and delivered in line with current NPCC and College of Policing guidance and your own force or unit policy, using appropriate protective equipment standards. Low-energy training systems are treated differently in law from live firearms, and can be run compliantly inside an ordinary building. This is general guidance rather than legal advice — verify the current position against Home Office and NPCC documentation, and take your own legal and armoury advice, before you procure or deploy any system.
Can CQB training run inside our existing building without a range?
In most cases, yes. Low-energy gas blowback systems are designed to be used indoors and do not require a live-fire range, which is one of their principal advantages. Many units run realistic room-clearance and scenario training inside an existing building or a dedicated training house. The main requirements are controlled access, clear safety protocols, mandatory eye and face protection, and a briefed range of engagement — not a purpose-built shooting range.
Can units purchase equipment directly, or is hire available?
Both. Units can purchase CQB systems outright to build a permanent in-house capability, or hire equipment and facility time for specific exercises or trials before committing to a purchase. Hire is often the sensible first step when evaluating a new system or running an occasional large exercise, while purchase is more cost-effective for units training at volume year-round. Non Lethal Training supports both routes and can advise on which fits your training tempo and budget.
Non Lethal Training — UK’s Leading Force-on-Force Training Specialists
Build a CQB capability that trains real decisions at real distance
20+ years supplying and supporting professional training systems for UK Counter Terrorism units, the British Army, and international security organisations.
✓ UK Counter Terrorism approved
✓ Purchase or hire available