Are we too obsessed with speed?


PDA






couldbeanyone
June 20, 2014, 05:48 PM
Many threads on this forum about handgun defense always seem to come down to shooting as many bullets as fast as you can. If you don't have a 15 round magazine and can't empty your gun in 3 seconds your a dead man
I have been caught up in the speed game myself in the past. As I have gotten older, my thinking has began to change. If I pick up a double action revolver and shoot rapidly, my splits will usually be in the .21 to .23 second range. At this speed I will inavariably have some C zone hits. In competition this is ok as you can drop a few points now and then, if your times are fast enough. I now slow down enough to get all A zone hits when I practice even though that slows me down.
In looking at the gunfighters of the past a great many of them didn't seem to be as worried about speed as we are today. After all Frank Hamer always focused on taking his time and getting a good aimed shot. Captain Jonathan Davis was ambushed by 14 men and prevailed, killing 7 men with nothing more than two Colt cap and ball revolvers. I'm pretty sure he was taking pretty good aim to get that many hits while under fire.
I think it was Cint Smith that said, "of all the videos you ever saw of gunfights, was the problem ever that they weren't shooting fast enough?"
Having said all of this, does anyone know of a documented gunfight that was lost because someone wasn't shooting fast enough split times? What say you?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we too obsessed with speed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rockhopper46038
June 20, 2014, 05:51 PM
I say it is better to be accurate than fast; but you better be fast.

Sol
June 20, 2014, 05:56 PM
I know a guy that has had to use his pistol a few times.

Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place...usually.

It usually came down to the criminals reluctance to actually use his weapon as a weapon, instead of a tool of intimidation.

Kid shot at the guy, probably to scare him, and it hit the wall behind him. Kid turns his head for a second to check the door and the rest is history.

Anectdotal? Yes.

I think the whole mobile firefight moving behind cover is a little too overplayed.
It probably doesn't happen that often except if you are in a war or some serious police business. Not saying that it can't happen to regular joes, probably the exception more than the rule.

Edit: I vote opportunity and shot placement.

40-82
June 20, 2014, 06:29 PM
Imagine someone is leveling a shotgun on you at close range and your pistol is still holstered. You have to be very fast--even that might not be good enough--but a very fast miss is useless. The problem is always going to be that you don't know how much time you will have. To develop the discipline to know how much time you need to make a hit, take that amount of time, no more, and no less, is what we train for, but it's not easy even in practice. Missing at a high rate of speed may have less than no value.

Sol
June 20, 2014, 06:33 PM
Imagine someone is leveling a shotgun on you at close range and your pistol is still holstered. You have to be very fast--even that might not be good enough--but a very fast miss is useless. The problem is always going to be that you don't know how much time you will have. To develop the discipline to know how much time you need to make a hit, take that amount of time, no more, and no less, is what we train for, but it's not easy even in practice. Missing at a high rate of speed may have less than no value.

Hmm, I would be more concerned at either finding suitable cover or trying to disarm at that point.

If he already has a bead on you, it's probably too late to draw (from concealment?) aim and fire.

jim243
June 20, 2014, 06:43 PM
If you don't have a 15 round magazine and can't empty your gun in 3 seconds your a dead man

I doubt this will ever happen. Not often do we get the opportunity to shoot rapid fire at the range so practice of this would be pretty impossible. But it did make me laugh because in a IDPA match about two years ago I had the opportunity to do a shoot house match at the end of a long day, shooting 8 bad guys and at the time some inside some outside.

Well, just for the hell of it I decided to empty all my mags and see what I could do. You are allowed only 10 rounds per mag and one in the chamber. Soooo, in 35 seconds I shot 31 rounds with two mag changes into the targets as fast as I could (it was a blast.) When the smoke cleared, I was zero points down meaning I had neutralized all targets. (at least two hits per target in the A zone) People outside the shoot house thought I was using a machine gun in the match (LOL) but it was just my PT-92 handgun. 35 seconds is a terrible time for something that should have only been 20 seconds for 16 shots, but I just wanted to see what I could do.

So I guess it can be done (but the targets weren't shooting back), but I doubt that I will ever need to do it again. In a real gun fight I would expect only 3 or 4 shots to be fired so I carry a 45 ACP with 7 +1 and doubt that I will ever need my extra mag I carry.

If I should ever need to use it, it will be 3 aimed shots (triple tap, two in the chest, one in the head) in about 5 seconds that will be needed.

Just my view on this.
Jim

hardluk1
June 20, 2014, 07:31 PM
I have to many medial issues to get worried about being fast. Just staying calm and placing multiple bullets well.

Sam1911
June 20, 2014, 07:54 PM
A few random thoughts:

1). There may be some truth to the idea that shooters tend to focus a little too much on speed. Speed is not the only important factor in play. One should develop precision/accuracy to a nearly equivalent level as they do speed of weapon manipulation.

2) the matters were contemplating are centered around social violence and social violence does not happen slowly in all but the most unusual situations. There is an implied and immutable requirement to observe, orient, decide, and act as quickly as is humanly possible because any common lethal threat will be employing great haste and explosiveness of action to harm you. A situation may not develop in the blink of an eye but if it turns violent it usually does so very suddenly.

3) speed of reaction and explosiveness of violence creates more time for you to get on with the other functions you must do to survive a violent encounter. The more skillful, fluid, and fast you are in deploying your weapon, the less time and brainpower you have to shunt over to those tasks and the more time and processing power you have for dodging, blocking, moving, seeing, assessing, and otherwise solving the problem.

4) you cannot miss fast enough to win a gun fight, but assuredly you can shoot slow enough to lose one. You might not need to get that first shot off in less than 2 seconds, and you might not need to shoot better than a 0.25 split time, but it is a whole lot better to be able to when you need to than to not rise to that challenge if that's what's being required of you in YOUR gunfight.

5) training for gun manipulation proficiency is only one small part of the defensive skills set. If you somehow are presented with the choice between working on knocking your split times down from 0.25 to 0.18, on the one hand, and learning retention techniques, extreme close-quarters fighting with a gun, creating space and using your hands, situational awareness, or other more focused skills training, let the split times go. Besides, by the time you've trained and practiced all that other stuff, your splits will get better on their own!

David E
June 20, 2014, 09:08 PM
Many threads on this forum about handgun defense always seem to come down to shooting as many bullets as fast as you can. If you don't have a 15 round magazine and can't empty your gun in 3 seconds your a dead man

Don't think I've ever seen that written.

I have been caught up in the speed game myself in the past. As I have gotten older, my thinking has began to change. If I pick up a double action revolver and shoot rapidly, my splits will usually be in the .21 to .23 second range. At this speed I will inavariably have some C zone hits. In competition this is ok as you can drop a few points now and then, if your times are fast enough. I now slow down enough to get all A zone hits when I practice even though that slows me down.

I think fast C zone hits are more acceptable on the street than at the match. As long as I'll hit center mass, I'm not going to slow down to hit the center of the center mass.

In looking at the gunfighters of the past a great many of them didn't seem to be as worried about speed as we are today.

Wyatt Earp famously said about how to win gunfights, "take your time. In a hurry." This means take the time you need to make the shot, but not one microsecond longer.

I think it was Cint Smith that said, "of all the videos you ever saw of gunfights, was the problem ever that they weren't shooting fast enough?"

Clint says a lot of stupid things.

Having said all of this, does anyone know of a documented gunfight that was lost because someone wasn't shooting fast enough split times? What say you?


First of all, no one is suggesting shooting TOO fast so you miss. But it dangerous to dawdle when it's not necessary.

Many people killed in gunfights were too slow or shot too wild. When I was a cop, I heard the story of a top PPC vow tutor arrive on scene to engage 3 armed robbers. PPC doesn't require exceptional speed, but it does require good accuracy. He center punched the first two before the third robber shot and killed him.

I keep reading "you can't miss fast enough to win," but that's not true. John Farnam has a quip about a guy in South Africa that was attacked inside his house. He grabbed his BHP and immediately started shooting at the attackers. They were apparently so shocked at his explosive, violent response their shots went wild as they beat feet out of there. Still, I agree it's not the best strategy.

It's better to be fast and accurate instead of slow and accurate.

couldbeanyone
June 20, 2014, 09:38 PM
David E, my fear is that those A zone hits in practice and games will become C zone hits when the chips are down. If I practice and game play thinking C zones are good enough, they could easily become D zone or misses. I don't really think of a .46 split as dawdling.

Sam1911
June 20, 2014, 09:43 PM
I don't really think of a .46 split as dawdling.We may have a certain disparity of experiences and proficiency levels making it more difficult for us to find common ground on this subject.

Many, many shooters would feel like they're getting palpably older while waiting for a 0.46 sec. split to pass. While it is really a hair better than 2 shots a second, so not actually "slow" in the whole spectrum of events, that rate of firing is going to feel impossibly slow to anyone who's been involved in competitive shooting, at least.

Wyatt Earp famously said about how to win gunfights, "take your time. In a hurry." This means take the time you need to make the shot, but not one microsecond longer. Very reminiscent of Brian Enos' explanation of seeing exactly what you need to see to make the shot. (With the implication being, "... and nothing more.")

Deaf Smith
June 20, 2014, 10:08 PM
Are we too obsessed with speed?

Nope... not as long as it does not sacrifice accuracy.

And you can be very fast and very accurate at the same time.

Very reminiscent of Brian Enos' explanation of seeing exactly what you need to see to make the shot. (With the implication being, "... and nothing more.")

I am more fond of his saying... 'just let it happen'. For if you train hard and often you will internalize it and your subconscious will take over in an emergency.

Maku mozo!

Deaf

David E
June 20, 2014, 10:11 PM
David E, my fear is that those A zone hits in practice and games will become C zone hits when the chips are down. If I practice and game play thinking C zones are good enough, they could easily become D zone or misses. I don't really think of a .46 split as dawdling.


Truth be known, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C.

And there's no way you should double your time from .23 to .46 just to hit the A zone.

couldbeanyone
June 20, 2014, 10:12 PM
Sam1911, a .46 split seems pretty slow to me too, but that is about what it takes for me to be 99% sure of all good solid A zone hits. I can shoot about .22 splits if I don't mind about 25% C zone hits. This would be at 10 yards. While this isn't great by any means, I think we are not in a such a different universe that we can't communicate.
My thoughts go to mindset, if I always practice while thinking, go as fast as I can, instead of get a good hit but go fast. I am afraid of what my rate of fire and accuracy might be with someone shooting at me if my mindset is always, fast as you can go.

David E
June 20, 2014, 10:15 PM
Nope... not as long as it does not sacrifice accuracy.

And you can be very fast and very accurate at the same time.



I am more fond of his saying... 'just let it happen'. For if you train hard and often you will internalize it and your subconscious will take over in an emergency.

Maku mozo!

Deaf


Amen!

couldbeanyone
June 20, 2014, 10:21 PM
David E, ok so I suck, but a lot of us do, we can't all be as proficient as you. Maybe thats why we get so many misses in gunfights when we shoot as fast as we humanly can.

David E
June 20, 2014, 11:33 PM
David E, ok so I suck, but a lot of us do, we can't all be as proficient as you.


Well, that's not what I said. If you're getting .23 splits and keeping them in the C zone, then I'd work on that, not doubling my shot to shot time to improve the hit by a few inches. But that's just me.

Maybe thats why we get so many misses in gunfights when we shoot as fast as we humanly can.


If you never practice shooting "as fast as we humanly can," you're right.

But it IS possible to shoot fast AND hit. Knowing this, I find hitting as fast as I can humanly shoot a goal worthy of pursuit.

TestPilot
June 21, 2014, 12:28 AM
The conclusion I drew from analyzing actual gun fights:

Speed from decision to engage to first hit on target: Very important.

Split time between hits on same target: Not as important.

Hunter2011
June 21, 2014, 12:31 AM
Thing is, if you shoot as fast as you can, how accurate will your shots be? Remember, it will be under lots of stress, not like on a shooting range.
The guys here who were unfortunate enough in the sense that they had to shoot to protect themselves, can give some good advice here.
One thing I have read in the past is that if you shot someone twice in the chest, and he did not go down, he will run away anyway. That is what I've read in threads about actual SD shootings, on forums by long standing members on forums in my country. Won't emptying a 15 shot magazine in 3 seconds for one BG get you in trouble anyway?
I carry a 7 shot 9mm, so I have to conserve my shots, and make every shot count. Maybe when you have a 17 shot pistol you can affords to shoot a bit faster.
I myself would try to hit with two fast shots, and then run for cover if it is close. Then I will fire again from cover if still needed.

BSA1
June 21, 2014, 12:49 AM
I think fast C zone hits are more acceptable on the street than at the match. As long as I'll hit center mass, I'm not going to slow down to hit the center of the center mass.

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. What you and other shooters that put speed over accuracy are over looking is the extreme measures the human body will do to survive. Having worked in a major hospital trauma unit I have seen many patients with horrible injuries come in still conscious and able to converse with the Doctor and medical staff while they were evaluating the patient.

Minute of pie plate just doesn’t cut it for decisively ending an attack. The human body is actually pretty hard to kill and can survive a long period of time with injuries that prove fatal. Accurate shot placement is required to shut down the human body as quickly as possible.

For a real life example I am talking about read about the infamous FBI shoot-out with two determined criminals in Miami in 1986 in which two FBI agents were killed and five others wounded by Michael Platt. Platt killed the two agents and wounded the others despite receiving multiple gunshot wounds himself including a lethal chest wound early in the fight. The gunshots that finally ended the incident was a head shot to Matrix that traveled downward through the facial bones, into the neck, where it entered the spinal column and severed the spinal cord and a round in Platt’s chest that bruised the spinal cord. Tests showed that neither Platt and Matrix had drugs in their systems.

Stop and consider how small of target the spinal column is and it was necessary to finally shut these two criminals down. It was bullet placement that resulted in their deaths which is also the opinion of the FBI.

David E
June 21, 2014, 01:16 AM
I'm not putting speed over accuracy, I'm combining those two elements.

Ed Mireles shot them both in the head from just a few feet away. Are you advocating head or spine shots only? That's not what the FBI teaches.

My point is, a fast good hit is better than a slow "perfect" hit.

Having the time necessary to hit the second shirt button probably won't be available to you, so whattaya gonna do?

Of course, you can always shoot for their eye.....spoils their aim!

Sam1911
June 21, 2014, 08:32 AM
Certainly a human body can live on for a while (maybe even survive) after taking vital zone hits, but there is still a fairly strong case to be made that he who hits first tends to win. In a great many cases (no, not all of course) being shot is distracting and disheartening and at least forces the bad guy to reorient/re-acquire and that can buy you important fractions of a second to land the next shot and the next, and the next if need be.

Sure, most gun shot victims live through it. But a fast first hit -- even a 'C' hit -- followed up by three or four more 'A's and 'C's over the course of that first second decidedly stacks the game in your direction.

So, it isn't realistic to contend that a hit through the spinal cord is the only thing that counts, the only acceptable target zone, the only useful factor in stopping the attack.

couldbeanyone
June 21, 2014, 08:37 AM
TestPilot The conclusion I drew from analyzing actual gun fights:

Speed from decision to engage to first hit on target: Very important.

Split time between hits on same target: Not as important.

This mirrors what I am seeing.

So very often we hear of people in gun fights spraying out ten rounds and hitting nothing, then they get a grip and remind themselves to really aim and then they get a hit. Wouldn't it be far faster to always have the mindset to get a hit and get it on the first or second shot instead of the eleventh.

Its fine for folks to espouse that you can have both extreme speed and accuracyat all times, but the reality is that the vast majority of people don't have unlimited practice time or budgets. Even Jerry Miculek gets misses if he pushes too hard and this is in competition where only bragging rights are on the line.

Just saying that get a hit might be a better mindset than HURRY!

tarosean
June 21, 2014, 08:59 AM
Depends? if you shoot IDPA or USPSA speed is far more important to you.

David E
June 21, 2014, 09:40 AM
Depends? if you shoot IDPA or USPSA speed is far more important to you.


Bull-oney. Those are competitive shooting games.

But keep on mind, shooting for your life is a very competitive activity. After all, you're trying to kill/stop him before he kills/stops you. And he's doing the same thing.

Speed matters. Hits matter. Combine the two for best results.

David E
June 21, 2014, 10:08 AM
Its fine for folks to espouse that you can have both extreme speed and accuracy at all times,

Most people, when trying to hit, take more time than is required for the shot.

but the reality is that the vast majority of people don't have unlimited practice time or budgets.

How much does it cost to dry fire? A LOT of gun skills can be learned/improved without firing a shot.

Just saying that get a hit might be a better mindset than HURRY!


Don't shoot until you WILL hit. Missing wastes time and ammo, neither of which can be squandered in a gunfight.

CraigC
June 21, 2014, 10:45 AM
Are we too obsessed with speed?
Yes.


The conclusion I drew from analyzing actual gun fights:

Speed from decision to engage to first hit on target: Very important.

Split time between hits on same target: Not as important.
Yep.


if you shoot IDPA or USPSA speed is far more important to you.
Yep.


'Some' folks seem to be VERY obsessed with speed and anything else be damned. Apparently also thinking that everybody else should be obsessed with speed to the point that you're not very serious if you are not obsessed with speed. Typical gamer.

WestKentucky
June 21, 2014, 10:52 AM
I expected this to be a bullet velocity thread. Either way I do believe people focus too heavily on speed. Let's analyze history a bit. In the days of old people who were "packin heat" did so with a scattergun or single shot muzzleloading handgun. If they missed they were subject to a well aimed timely shot. So there was more importance on getting a hit. Then comes twister guns, same setup but 2 shots now, less emphasis on accuracy, a bit more on speed. Now true double barrel shotguns and derringers, faster still and but same emphasis on accuracy. Then SA revolvers giving a safe carry between caps we have 6 shots quickly. This is when accuracy seems to suffer a big hit. Bring on DA revolvers and you gain more speed, then cartridge guns, until the autoloaders come about. Each historical step was taken away from accuracy and towards firepower at a fast rate of fire. Was this to take on multiple badguys? Likely not since most issues are 1-1 fights. It does take human error out of the equation, especially for the inexperienced, elderly, poor vision etc. the recent additions of light based aids in weapon lights and lasers helps overcome part of this and is starting a push back towards accuracy, especially with a pocket gun craze limiting available round count. So over time we went from a point of HAVING to make that first shot or be killed by badguy, grizzly, or mountain lion to being comfortable carrying 15 and assuming we are going to get a hit (by dumb luck sometimes) which seems preposterous. In a military setting that makes sense as covering fire to allow tactical movement but for joe blow, not so much. This is strictly people wanting the newest nicest military toy and justifying a want by calling it a need.


Now on the other side of speed is bullet travel which also is a ridiculous thought process. The 45-70 was big and slow and nearly put the American bison into extinction. Big gun big critter but to modern standards very low velocity. Similarly the 30-30 is slow but that 150gr bullet has taken a massive number of deer elk etc. So we needs a 4000fps rifle why? With handguns it is the same,we need a 2000 fps gun why? The 357,41,44,460,480,500 magnums aren't enough? Ok they are revolvers that limit is to 5 or 6 rds (see paragraph above again) so 9mm,45acp, 40 sw 9x23, 10mm 38super, 45gap...how are those not enough when the colt navy was plenty 150 years ago. I could go into discussion about penetration and expansion or explosion even but realistically a hit is a hit and it's putting the opponent down. For speed of projectile look up myth busters experiment at shooting into a swimming pool.

BSA1
June 21, 2014, 10:53 AM
Certainly a human body can live on for a while (maybe even survive) after taking vital zone hits, but there is still a fairly strong case to be made that he who hits first tends to win. In a great many cases (no, not all of course) being shot is distracting and disheartening and at least forces the bad guy to reorient/re-acquire and that can buy you important fractions of a second to land the next shot and the next, and the next if need be.

Sure, most gun shot victims live through it. But a fast first hit -- even a 'C' hit -- followed up by three or four more 'A's and 'C's over the course of that first second decidedly stacks the game in your direction.

So, it isn't realistic to contend that a hit through the spinal cord is the only thing that counts, the only acceptable target zone, the only useful factor in stopping the attack.

We are talking about the differences between psychological vs. physiological stops.

Psychological is destroying your attackers will to fight. Inflicting non-lethal pain is often a good way to cause this to happen. Hence a non-lethal and non-incapacitating gunshot causes the attacker to stop their attack immediately. It is a common occurrence in major hospital emergency rooms, especially on weekends to have adults come in with small caliber non-life threatening gun shots crying like a baby and carrying on about dying and then leaving for jail in handcuffs after the Doctor removes the bullet (for evidence, not medical reasons) and puts a bandaid over the hole.

However psychological stops are highly unpredictable and unreliable.

With physiological we are focusing on destroying the body’s able to continue to function. This can a be a lethal injury which will eventually result in death or a injury to the central nervous system which incapacitates the body instantly or in a very few seconds. In a gun fight obviously this is the most desirable goal.

The good news is in most gunfights the attacker perceives receiving any gunshot as being lethal and looks for a way out of the situation so minute of pie plate accuracy and a small caliber round will be sufficient.

It’s the attacker who is determined enough to follow through that is going to cause the most problems. Even with a heart shot it is going to take 30 seconds or more for the body to bleed out enough to lose enough blood pressure to rendered unconsciousness. Enough time for a determined attacker to finish his attack.

I have never brought in to the "one-shot stop" theory in handgun stopping power. That is why we carry guns that hold more than one rounds. All I want to happen when in a fight is for the attacker to stop right now. As you mention fast first hit -- even a 'C' hit -- followed up by three or four more 'A's and 'C's makes a lot of sense.

I like to think of wasp stings. One wasp sting for most of us is a minor thing (i.e a "C" Hit. Is there such a thing as a "D" hit?). A sharp sting and a little swelling. However there are folks like my Dad where a single sting can be lethal unless he gets treatment fairly quickly (i.e."A" hit). Now for the rest we can ignore that single wasp sting but it becomes a different story when there are a swarm of wasps. It doesn't matter where they sting it hurts a lot and I know enough stings can be lethal (i.e. a whole lot of "C" hits).

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 10:55 AM
Are we too obsessed with speed?Who?

If one is attacked it is likely that the attack will occur suddenly and without warning. Responding with force before it is too late will require speed.

Assuming hits with a handun, it is likely that more than one will be needed to stop, and again, time available will be limited. Again, speed.

But misses are unlikely to help very much, and they can lead to disaster.

It becomes a matter of balancing speed and precision. How much precision will be needed will be situationally dependent, and the defender will have to decide that when the occasion arises.

BSA1
June 21, 2014, 11:06 AM
One thing that hasn’t been discussed is how time is interpreted by the victim when attacked. There are many stories of the victim reporting how slow he was to bring his gun into action and long the gun fight/ attack took before it ended. Whereas a very common report by witnesses of the same incident is the shots were fired so rapidly it sounded like a machine gun. The shooter often reports he did not achieve incapacitating hits until they forced themselves to slow down and focus on the front sight.

David E
June 21, 2014, 11:20 AM
'Some' folks seem to be VERY obsessed with speed and anything else be damned.


I've been very clear that fast HITS are what counts.

Or do you think a bullseye hit in 3 seconds is better than a bullseye hit in 2 seconds?

If so, explain why. If not, then you have no point.

CraigC
June 21, 2014, 11:25 AM
I didn't say speed was unimportant but it's never a good idea to be obsessed with a single aspect.

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 11:28 AM
Let's keep the heat down here, folks.

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 11:29 AM
Posted by CraigC: it's never a good idea to be obsessed with a single aspect.True fact.

Onward Allusion
June 21, 2014, 11:29 AM
It's better to be fast and accurate instead of slow and accurate.


<curmudgeon_mode>
Conversely, it can be said that it is better to be slow(er) and accurate than fast(er) and inaccurate.

Just practice, practice, practice. When you're done. Practice some more. All this conjecture on "gee, is fast better than accurate...etc...etc.." is downright silly.

Strictly here in the States... How many civilians engage in firefights? How many CC holders will ever need to use it in the time that they are licensed? How many people will actually have to draw their gun in their lifetime? I can safely say that the majority of gun owners will never have to draw on anyone in their lifetime.

I'm a civilian. I am a documented carrier and in the past an undocumented carrier. So, I probably carried for 25 plus years. I grew up on the SW Side of Chicago and lived around Chicago for probably the first 10 years of my adult life. In that time, I've had to draw TWICE. Never did I have to fire a single shot. Granted, I have been lucky. For everyday civi life, be aware of your surroundings and be viligent. You are very unlikely going to have to fire a single shot.

</curmudgeon_mode>

CraigC
June 21, 2014, 11:34 AM
I can safely say that the majority of gun owners will never have to draw on anyone in their lifetime.
And I think we must keep this in mind at all times. Being prepared is one thing but I refuse to be obsessed with something that is such a remote possibility.

David E
June 21, 2014, 11:37 AM
I didn't say speed was unimportant but it's never a good idea to be obsessed with a single aspect.


Fast accuracy is not a single aspect. :rolleyes:

CornCod
June 21, 2014, 11:42 AM
This topic set me to thinking about great lawman shooters of the past. Jim Cirillo of the legendary NYPD Stakeout Squad and survivor of 16 gunfights, shot three perps (killing one and incapacitating the other two) in a late 1960's grocery store encounter. The crime scene cops concluded that he shot the robbers in three seconds at 75 feet with obstacles with a Model 10 Smith. He was a big Police Pistol competitor, along with a lot of the other men in his squad.

On the other hand, the legendary Wyatt Earp was a strong believer in taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling a trigger. Cirillo, remembering his grocery store encounter, felt a strange sense of detachment thinking to himself "hey look, I just shot my revolver, ain't that something."

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 11:52 AM
Posted by Onward Allusion: Strictly here in the States... How many civilians engage in firefights? How many CC holders will ever need to use it in the time that they are licensed? How many people will actually have to draw their gun in their lifetime? I can safely say that the majority of gun owners will never have to draw on anyone in their lifetime.

I'm sure that very few people indeed will ever have to fire a firearm in self defense.

The issue is one of basic risk management.

The likelihood of one particular individual being attacked on any given day is far less than remote.

The likelihood of one or her being attacked, or threatened with violent harm, during his or her lifetime is considerably higher. Rather small, but probably much higher than than remote. Depends upon one's age and lifestyle and where one goes and when.

The potential consequences are severe--perhaps very severe.

The effort required for mitigation is not very high.

That, and the severity of the potential consequences, make mitigation prudent.

All of the same things can be said about accidental injury or choking, poisoning, fire in the home or automobile, and so on.

Should the occasion arise, not having the means to deal with it could be disastrous.

I have had to produce a weapon for self defense on three occasions. All occurred many years ago in extremely low risk circumstances.

I did not have to shoot.

But there are no guarantees, and I choose to avoid putting myself into a position of helplessness.

David E
June 21, 2014, 12:02 PM
On the other hand, the legendary Wyatt Earp was a strong believer in taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling a trigger.

No, he didn't pause. He "took his time in a hurry," which is very different than "taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling the trigger."

Kleenbore, I don't know who said it first (a THR poster) about why he carried a gun when the odds of actually needing it were so low:

"It's not the odds, it's the stakes."

CraigC
June 21, 2014, 12:09 PM
And I think we can avoid putting ourselves in a position of helplessness without obsessing over whether our splits are .26 or .46 seconds.

The biggest difference in all of what we consider to be successful gunfighters (folks like Cirillo, Askins, Threepersons, Hardin, Hickok, Hamer, etc..) was not that they were very fast. They were certainly fast enough but the difference is that they were deliberate. They made the decision to take another's life very quickly and once that decision was made, there was no turning back.

Spending your life obsessing about splits might make you a better IPSC shooter but if you hesitate when it comes time to take another human's life, none of it matters. We ain't cold-blooded hitmen on an `80's cop show. We're fathers, sons, brothers and uncles. Killing folks ain't our business. You certainly need to be proficient enough to get the job done but the outcome of that very rare gunfight will be more determined by what's between your ears than what's in your holster or what's on your IPSC score card.

Personally, I'd rather face a dilettante with an AK47 or even a high level competition shooter who says he doesn't hunt because he's not "into gore" (Taran Butler), than Tom Threepersons or Charles Askins with a single action revolver.

RustyShackelford
June 21, 2014, 12:09 PM
Who was it that said; speed's fine but accuracy is final?

:rolleyes:
I didn't know "speed" or throwing lead down range was a major issue in 2014.
Unloading your 6 shooter or 19 shot semi auto pistol in 2 seconds is neither smart or impressive.
You need to learn how to fire then assess or gauge if more rounds are needed.
The recent Wilcox incident in Las Vegas NV shows why looking all over or scan for threats is critical too. :uhoh:

To me, there's nothing impressive about "quick draws" or how fast you can shoot. You need to hit what you are aiming at.
That takes time $$$ and practice.

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 12:11 PM
Posted by David E: No, he [(Wyatt Earp)] didn't pause. He "took his time in a hurry," which is very different than "taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling the trigger."Let's also keep in mind that what law enforcement officer might have done under some circumstances is probably not very relevant tot the rest of us. Earp and other of his ilk pursued suspects. Jim Cirillo waited for them.

We do neither. We try to avoid being jumped by them by surprise. And wham we fail....

Onward Allusion
June 21, 2014, 12:11 PM
CornCod
This topic set me to thinking about great lawman shooters of the past. Jim Cirillo of the legendary NYPD Stakeout Squad and survivor of 16 gunfights, shot three perps (killing one and incapacitating the other two) in a late 1960's grocery store encounter. The crime scene cops concluded that he shot the robbers in three seconds at 75 feet with obstacles with a Model 10 Smith. He was a big Police Pistol competitor, along with a lot of the other men in his squad.<SNIP>
"

OMG, you mean he did it with a REVOLVER??? Say it ain't so?! I don't believe you! There's no way anyone can do that with a REVOLVER! :D

CraigC
June 21, 2014, 12:13 PM
And a lot of what was considered kosher in the late 19th century would be considered murder today.

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 12:17 PM
Posted by CraigC: And a lot of what was considered kosher in the late 19th century would be considered murder today.Good put.

CraigC
June 21, 2014, 12:20 PM
Which is to say that somebody with a gun in their hand, looking for a specific person to kill them has a decided advantage over the one being pursued. If the decision has already been made, it doesn't take much speed to round a corner and shoot somebody.

Kleanbore
June 21, 2014, 12:26 PM
Posted by CraigC: Spending your life obsessing about splits might make you a better IPSC shooter but if you hesitate when it comes time to take another human's life, none of it matters. We ain't cold-blooded hitmen on an `80's cop show. We're fathers, sons, brothers and uncles. Killing folks ain't our business. You certainly need to be proficient enough to get the job done but the outcome of that very rare gunfight will be more determined by what's between your ears than what's in your holster or what's on your IPSC score card. There is perhaps even more truth to that than that which is at first evident.

It goes to how one should train.

Can you draw and fire quickly enough? Try a Tueller drill.

Can you clear a jam quickly an without looking? That could prove important.

Though it is unlikely that any one of us will be faced with either eventuality, it is a matter of the severity of the consequences.

Split times? One can get far too focussed on some things.

David E
June 21, 2014, 12:44 PM
When I met Cirillo and took his classes, he was using a Glock, altho I made him a custom holster for his 2.5" K-frame. (He said the holster was "perfect," as it accommodated his limited range of motion.)

I am amazed at how many people that see the words "fast hits" or "fast accuracy," but read "shewt as fast as yew can, hits be damned!" No one is advocating spray and pray.

When I was a cop, I pointed my gun at a lot of people. I was ready to shoot each one if they required it.

One night in my district, a disturbed man decided to kill the cops that showed up one night. Except for the determination and SPEED of one of the officers, both would've been killed instead of one. (Who didn't wear a vest)

In a recent "Ayoob Files," an IPSC competitor, who would've been mocked by some on this site, found himself in Iraq guarding a back door. Long story short, he killed several Iraqis pretty fast and pretty easily. He later remarked that the shooting challenge itself wasn't that difficult. In fact, he'd been challenged more at the matches he shot.

Hits count. Speed counts. It's risky to ignore either one.

bsms
June 21, 2014, 01:00 PM
Some of it depends on your opponent. If you shoot a man in the heart with a 44 Magnum, he has enough residual blood pressure in his brain to keep functioning for 10-20 seconds - plenty of time to take deliberate shots at you. If your bad luck included going up against a truly tough, determined guy, the ONLY way to prevent him from shooting you is a head shot, which is also a difficult shot to count on.

If you are in a gunfight, you ought to assume you will be shot before it is over. If not, you are as much lucky as anything else.

For my part, I don't live to shoot. I don't practice my quick draw and I don't shoot nearly often enough to hit accurately without at least a little aiming. Nor do I believe I am atypical of the average CCW person. There is about 0% chance that I could draw a concealed weapon and get a shot off in 0.5 seconds.

The one time I pulled a gun, I didn't have to shoot. Good thing, because a 6 shot 22 revolver isn't much good against 8 guys. That whole math thing, with 8-6=2. I did figure I would last long enough to shoot 1-2 guys in the face, and that was enough that day...they didn't decide any possible reward was worth the risk so I was able to walk away.

But if you pull a gun in self-defense, you are already in deep doo-doo. You have to be - you aren't legal in most states to shoot unless your life or someone else's is threatened. By definition, if you can't pull and shoot unless you are in danger of dying or serious injury, you cannot pull a gun unless things are pretty bad already.

If someone wants to do the constant practice to be both fast & accurate, fine. But if you are not inclined to spend a LOT of time practicing, you may have to trust to being tough and accurate. What no one can afford is to be inaccurate - so work on accuracy first, and then speed as time & opportunity allow.

RustyShackelford
June 22, 2014, 03:03 PM
I don't understand post #50. :confused:
Who would mock a forum member or PSC if the tactics or training methods worked?

Different people do different things with different gear/weapons different ways.
Are they wrong? Can they do it better? Who knows. :rolleyes:

I don't go around being critical of what people carry or why they do certain things.
License holders or armed professionals who do that need to grow up. :mad:

Rusty

Vern Humphrey
June 22, 2014, 04:12 PM
Many threads on this forum about handgun defense always seem to come down to shooting as many bullets as fast as you can. If you don't have a 15 round magazine and can't empty your gun in 3 seconds your a dead man

There are two sayings to keep in mind:

In a gunfight, you don't run out of ammunition, you run out of time.

And

You can't miss fast enough to win.

Arizonan
June 22, 2014, 09:59 PM
Speed is fine, but accuracy is final!

DT Guy
June 22, 2014, 10:20 PM
I would prefer, given the choice, to land the first hit in a gunfight. Actually, I would prefer to land the ONLY hit...and so I hope to be faster than my opponent, and train accordingly.

After all, fast hits are really the ultimate ' tactical ', right?

Bezoar
June 22, 2014, 10:44 PM
well on "kosher". alot of what was kosher then, isnt now. but alot of what is called kosher today, would have created an unemployed cop in the OLD days.

RustyShackelford
June 22, 2014, 10:54 PM
In a real critical incident, you(the gun owner or CCW license holder) will need to observe & assess the possible threat, draw or get the firearm ready, aim, then fire directly at the subject(s).
Your goal should be to drop the attacker quickly. Secondary bad guys(robbers) more than likely will move in on your flanks or try to get around you/behind you. :uhoh:
Training to move to cover or be ready to do a tactical reload & engage a second threat is smart.
To flee or leave isn't a bad idea either. You can get to safety then call 911 or alert law enforcement. I wouldn't rail against a license holder or armed citizen who left a scene but went to the police or their atty. Flight does not = guilt or misconduct.

David E
June 23, 2014, 12:48 AM
Your goal should be to drop the attacker quickly. Secondary bad guys(robbers) more than likely will move in on your flanks or try to get around you/behind you. :uhoh:



I disagree. What's likely is they'll run like the spineless punks they are. On the unlikely chance they don't, that's where multiple target acquisition skills come in.

Training to move to cover or be ready to do a tactical reload & engage a second threat is smart.

I don't obsess over getting to cover. I likely won't be alone and the result would be leaving people important to me behind with the goblins. Not gonna do it. What I would do, if the decision to shoot was made, is move away from my people to minimize them getting hit by incoming fire.

Likewise, I'm not going to worry about any "tactical reload," either. I'm doing a speed reload if one is needed.

To flee or leave isn't a bad idea either. ...


IF it's possible to do so safely, you betcha.

murf
June 23, 2014, 01:13 PM
slow is smooth, smooth is fast. the more you practice, the slower you feel and the faster you become.

becoming more proficient (whether accuracy, draw, tactical awareness, reload, etc.) takes quality practice. speed always increases with practice. don't worry about speed.

murf

Kleanbore
June 23, 2014, 02:11 PM
Posted by David E: What's likely is they'll run like the spineless punks they are. Do you have a factual basis for that belief?

ATLDave
June 23, 2014, 02:35 PM
speed always increases with practice. don't worry about speed.

That certainly has not been my experience. I've gotten into USPSA shooting over the last year. When I started, there were a number of shooters in the club where I shoot who were all at approximately the same level in terms of score/hit factor. Some of those guys were clearly taking the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" approach. Every action they took, from drawing, to firing, to reloading, was done with measured, controlled precision. They were very smooth. They were not measurably fast.

Some of the other shooters at the same overall level were trying to push speed (without losing control).

It's been about 9 months. The first population shoots about the same way they always did. The second population is measurably and empirically better. And it's not even close.

Focusing on being smooth has its role, but if you want to meaningfully increase speed, at some point you have to push it. Maybe you push it to the point of failure then back off 5%, and now fast feels smooth. But I don't think you'll ever get very fast without pushing it. Or at least most people won't, and I sure won't.

ATLDave
June 23, 2014, 02:36 PM
Do you have a factual basis for that belief?

A factual basis for the claim that most criminals will run if shot at? You seriously dispute that fact?

Well, one place we could look is the rate of defensive gun use compared to number of defensive shootings. There are orders of magnitude more of the former than the latter.

If most criminals run at the mere sight of a gun, why would you expect them to be braver in the face of actual fire?

David E
June 23, 2014, 02:38 PM
slow is smooth, smooth is fast. the more you practice, the slower you feel and the faster you become.

becoming more proficient (whether accuracy, draw, tactical awareness, reload, etc.) takes quality practice. speed always increases with practice. don't worry about speed.

murf


To a point, that's true. But to progress past that point, the various elements of speed must be specifically addressed and practiced.

David E
June 23, 2014, 02:46 PM
Do you have a factual basis for that belief?


Are you saying the typical street punk, once their intended "easy mark" starts shooting/killing their pal(s), is going to initiate a tactical outflanking maneuver instead of beating feet outta there???

I guess the bad guys in your area are more disciplined and have more tactical training than most miscreants.

Hurryin' Hoosier
June 23, 2014, 03:21 PM
I have always placed great store in the advice of Sir Winston Churchill:

"Economy of effort. Never stand up when you can sit down, and never sit down when you can lie down." ;)

murf
June 23, 2014, 03:37 PM
totally agree. your metronome idea is a perfect example of a method to increase speed.

speed and precision are inversely proportional. practice will increase both, but the shooter gets to decide what speed/precision ratio they want for a given scenario.

one still needs to adopt a process, or method to "get proficient".

i still say: slow is smooth, smooth is fast. (just me)

atldave,

maybe the ones that didn't get "speed" need to be shown how to get out of that rut. no matter how long you practice "wrong", it will never be "right". maybe the slowbees need a bit of "right" instruction.

murf

ClickClickD'oh
June 23, 2014, 03:46 PM
Depends? if you shoot IDPA or USPSA speed is far more important to you.

That's odd, because I've found through experience that accuracy wins IDPA matches. Most shooters will shoot a stage in 12-17 seconds. Of course, if the 12 second guy racks up 8 seconds in thrown shots and the 17 second guy only gets 1...

The slower guy won.

See it happen time after time.

ATLDave
June 23, 2014, 03:47 PM
atldave,

maybe the ones that didn't get "speed" need to be shown how to get out of that rut. no matter how long you practice "wrong", it will never be "right". maybe the slowbees need a bit of "right" instruction.

Maybe. However, while I'm no expert and not really qualified to be passing judgment, their technique seems fairly sound. They don't seem to have a whole lot of wasted motion... it's just that the motion isn't fast. Their draw is simple and economical.... it just looks like it's filmed and played back at half speed. It's super smooth. And quite slow.

But, hey, it's OK with me. I'm waxing them nearly every week, so they can keep on being smooth if they want! :evil:

Vern Humphrey
June 23, 2014, 04:00 PM
Who was it that said; speed's fine but accuracy is final?
Bill Tilghman, "The Marshal of the Last Frontier." He was one of Oklahoma's "Three Guardsmen," and put down the old Indian Territory outlaws.

My father and grandfather knew and worked with him.

Kleanbore
June 23, 2014, 04:21 PM
Posted by David E: Are you saying the typical street punk, once their intended "easy mark" starts shooting/killing their pal(s), is going to initiate a tactical outflanking maneuver instead of beating feet outta there???I do not think there is such a thing as a "typical street punk".

I am questioning the wisdom of relying on the assumption that they will do so.

Such an assumption assumes, in turn, the following:

that the accomplices will recognize in the heat of the moment that the victim is in fact the one who is doing the shooting; there is an example in the Rangemaster "Lessons fom the Street" DVD in which a perp thought otherwise and walked right into it;
that the accomplices are, at least to some extent, rational people; and
that each accomplice will conclude that his best strategy at the time is to try to outrun the bullets of the defender rather than attacking in the ways in which he has trained in the prison yard.


I guess the bad guys in your area are more disciplined and have more tactical training than most miscreants.Again, do you have a factual basis for characterizing "most miscreants" in that manner?

murf
June 23, 2014, 04:21 PM
i'm no expert either. just know what has worked for me.

murf

Kleanbore
June 23, 2014, 04:28 PM
Posted by murf: speed and precision are inversely proportional. practice will increase both, but the shooter gets to decide what speed/precision ratio they want for a given scenario.Absolutely, and if your holes are closer together than they need to be, you are shooting too slowly.

ATLDave
June 23, 2014, 04:31 PM
Kleanbore, I read David E's comment to be about likelihood. Not about whether it would be true in every case. Extrapolating from the likelihood to every situation would be assuming. Simply stating the most common/likely/typical behavior is not "assuming" anything.

Again, we know that the number of defensive gun shootings is a tiny, tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. The mere sight of a gun is sufficient most of the time. So saying it is likely - not certain, as you seem to be reading - that most criminals would run upon being taken under fire seems to be true beyond any reasonable dispute.

murf
June 23, 2014, 04:39 PM
yes, the inverse is also true. the shooter needs to be aware of this and adjust accordingly.

murf

Kleanbore
June 23, 2014, 05:19 PM
Posted by ATLDave: Simply stating the most common/likely/typical behavior is not "assuming" anything. Stating that something is likely does require an assumption.

Again, we know that the number of defensive gun shootings is a tiny, tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. The mere sight of a gun is sufficient most of the time. So saying it is likely - not certain, as you seem to be reading - that most criminals would run upon being taken under fire seems to be true beyond any reasonable dispute.I think you are missing a very important point.

Criminals will generally, and probably almost always, but not always, cease and desist and leave upon the point of a gun. I have had that happen three times.

But once the shooting starts, a criminal would have to first recognize that the victim, and not one of his compatriots, is in tact doing the shooting, and then decide very quickly what course of action represents his best chance. Is it to try to overcome the shooter, or to outrun bullets? Would he have any chance at all of doing the latter? Does he stand any chance at all of escaping without the defender's car and/or family member as a hostage?

A quick decision by someone who has likely trained for hours on end for the occasion, it will likely spend upon mental health, level of desperation, distance from the defender, and other circumstances.

I think it is a big mistake to generalize about criminal behavior.

Kleanbore
June 23, 2014, 05:20 PM
Posted by murf: yes, the inverse is also true. the shooter needs to be aware of this and adjust accordingly.Agree.

Ed Ames
June 23, 2014, 05:25 PM
I have a qualified answer to this question.

Yes, people are, within certain contexts. It is a product of our general obsession with speed in this society. How many people have told you the 0-60 or top speed of their car? Why? Because speed is easy to measure and compare, and our society places great weight on comparison.

Is our obsession with speed a problem?

I can think of one context where it has serious negative consequences. Practicing. To be clear, here: Practicing is different than physical training (exercise) in that it is focused on skills and awareness, not muscle definition. When a runner makes her 10,000th run around the track trying to shave another 0.01 seconds off her time she is not practicing, she is training or exercising.

Practicing is a matter of mental focus and deliberate action. Practice means giving your brain enough time to process what you are doing. Speed reduces the time your brain/nervous system has to build the skills you are practicing, directly reducing the quality of your practice. Speed is the enemy of quality practice.

This is not my personal theory. Practice is a relatively well studied area and there are more than a few books on the subject. Read a few and you will see that my position is far from original.

Practicing should be done with intensity, focus, and deliberation, not speed. Many people get that wrong.

As for defensive situation, I'd say what matters is (in order):

1) Definitiveness (can you decide what to do, and stick to what you decide?)
2) Awareness (can your recognize a situation where you will need to change your behavior/act for safety?)
3) Repertoire (skills: can you run away, can you use cover, can you use your car as a weapon, can you talk or posture your way out of trouble, etc?)
4) Capability (do you have a gun? do you have the mindset to use it?) - this is the subset of repertoire which can be exercised in a given scenario
5) Effectiveness (do you hit what you aim at? convince those you talk to?)
6) Sangfroid

Speed is relevant to many of those, but it isn't even on the list as its own thing because speed without correct action is noise.

David E
June 23, 2014, 08:00 PM
I do not think there is such a thing as a "typical street punk".

Really? Based on what? All the street punks I dealt with or arrested weren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

I am questioning the wisdom of relying on the assumption that they will do so.

What assumption? I said if they DON'T cut and run, then that's where your multiple target transition training comes in.

Again, do you have a factual basis for characterizing "most miscreants" in that manner?


Look up some YouTube videos titled "carjacker gets shot" or "clerk shoots robber," etc. MOST of the time, the bad guy tries to get out of there ASAP and does nothing else. Other times, the robber shoots while retreating. A few show the robber ducking behind the counter and taking shots over the counter with his gun raised up like a periscope. But dang few and show the robber trying to outflank the clerk who is shooting back.

Maybe your experience differs and you can show that hardened, tactically trained street thugs are more prevalent than the strung out punks looking for an easy score.

Please cite examples.

Ankeny
June 23, 2014, 08:33 PM
Speed is the enemy of quality practice. Not if you are practicing speed. :D FWIW, most shooters don't understand the concept of seeing what you need to see in order to make and call the shot...and get to the next shot as quikly as possible. Splits are not nearly as important as transitions, etc.

Ed Ames
June 23, 2014, 09:11 PM
Not if you are practicing speed. :D FWIW, most shooters don't understand the concept of seeing what you need to see in order to make and call the shot...and get to the next shot as quikly as possible. Splits are not nearly as important as transitions, etc.
Even then.

There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions. Once you have mastered the skills you can shoot for speed (so to speak) but if you skip the initial slow practice it will be much harder to build up real speed.

A person could argue that the rote repetition of skills at full speed is more a form of specialized exercise (building up the specific muscles needed) than practice.

David E
June 23, 2014, 09:26 PM
Even then.

There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions. Once you have mastered the skills you can shoot for speed (so to speak) but if you skip the initial slow practice it will be much harder to build up real speed.



You missed his point.

He never said anything about skipping the skills required to be smooth and efficient. You introduced that just now as if to imply he was suggesting to bypass that step. :rolleyes:

He basically said that to achieve speed, you need to practice going fast. He's correct.

Cooldill
June 23, 2014, 09:52 PM
Well I personally think speed IS very critical to defensive handgun shooting.

That's why I carry a Glock 18 w/ 33 round mag w/ 4 New York reloads of the same setup.

Works for me. :cool:

KIDDIN! All jokes aside, I feel that it's usually the person who gets the first and most accuratly placed shot in the vitals is the one who would prevail. Now if you can do that at a rapid pace, more power to ya', but yes I believe some are a little hung up on speed. It's important, but getting that first round on target quickly in the RIGHT area is much more important than pure firepower of the handgun in question.

As for the guy with the cap and ball revolvers, they might be antiquated compared to today's technology but they can still get the job done. With my Colt Navy .36 I can place a proven deadly projectile on target just as fast as a Glock with the first shot. They were and still can be effective defensive handguns though obviously they have been surpassed in overall effectiveness by modern designs.

JMHO,

YMMV.

Ed Ames
June 23, 2014, 11:40 PM
You missed his point.

He never said anything about skipping the skills required to be smooth and efficient. You introduced that just now as if to imply he was suggesting to bypass that step. :rolleyes:

He basically said that to achieve speed, you need to practice going fast. He's correct.
You mean to say you think he is correct. I get that.

I didn't miss his point, I disagree with him. I disagree with you too. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either confused (missing a point) or dishonest (saying I was trying to imply another poster was bypassing stepps) but that is not to your credit and it is decidedly NOT high road of you.

There is a lot of research backing up my assertion that practicing at high speed, even if you think you are "practicing going fast" (and I disagree that "going fast" is a distinct skill one can practice), is neither efficient nor desirable.

David E
June 24, 2014, 01:10 AM
You mean to say you think he is correct.

No, Ed, I said what I meant. He IS right. This isn't opinion or idle speculation, it is observed and experienced fact.

I didn't miss his point, I disagree with him.

Based on what? What observed and experienced fact do you have that disagrees with him?

You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either confused (missing a point) or dishonest (saying I was trying to imply another poster was bypassing stepps)

But....you did exactly that....

but that is not to your credit and it is decidedly NOT high road of you.

What's not high road is for you to add elements not mentioned then attack those elements to discredit the other person while trying to make your "point."

There is a lot of research backing up my assertion

Oh? Cite some. And what do you mean it's your "assertion??" You mean you don't personally know?

that practicing at high speed, even if you think you are "practicing going fast" (and I disagree that "going fast" is a distinct skill one can practice), is neither efficient nor desirable.

Ed, I hate to ask, but can you cite your personal experience that qualifies you to speak with any authority on this topic? You disagree based on what personal experience, exactly?

You're either confused about what's being discussed here or misunderstanding that research you refer to, if it even applies here.

The speed which Ankeny refers to is known and practiced by ALL the top guns in USPSA and IDPA. Again, this is not idle speculation, but observed and/or experienced FACT.

Ankeny reached the level of Grandmaster in USPSA and you cannot reach that level by NOT learning how to GO FAST and practicing to GO FAST.

How about you?

I've taught 100's of people to accurately shoot faster than they ever thought they could before lunch time. Faster still after lunch.

How about you? What personal experiences do you have regarding shooting accurately at speed?

Ed Ames
June 24, 2014, 05:59 AM
No, Ed, I said what I meant. He IS right. This isn't opinion or idle speculation, it is observed and experienced fact.

Technically, in English, it is called opinion. It happens to be your opinion, and you happen to think that your opinions are special, but it is still firmly opinion.

Quote:
I didn't miss his point, I disagree with him.
Based on what? What observed and experienced fact do you have that disagrees with him?


As I said, "going fast" is not a distinct skill. It is a result.

Quote:
You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either confused (missing a point) or dishonest (saying I was trying to imply another poster was bypassing stepps)
But....you did exactly that....

No, I expressed an idea you seem to disagree with, and as a result you are mischaracterizing my statement. Either that or my point of view is so different from yours that your biases don't allow you to understand the plain meaning of my words.

Quote:
but that is not to your credit and it is decidedly NOT high road of you.
What's not high road is for you to add elements not mentioned then attack those elements to discredit the other person while trying to make your "point."

David, I am not trying to discredit anyone. I disagreed with what someone said, and explained why. That is what we do when we discuss. It is you who ascribed motives that were both negative and imaginary.

Quote:
There is a lot of research backing up my assertion
Oh? Cite some. And what do you mean it's your "assertion??" You mean you don't personally know?

Citation: Ericsson, K. Anders. "The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance." The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2006): 683-703.

In the English language, "Assertion" means: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

My assertion: practice should be done carefully and attentively, at a slower than maximum pace, to be effective.

Quote:
that practicing at high speed, even if you think you are "practicing going fast" (and I disagree that "going fast" is a distinct skill one can practice), is neither efficient nor desirable.
Ed, I hate to ask, but can you cite your personal experience that qualifies you to speak with any authority on this topic? You disagree based on what personal experience, exactly?

The most relevant personal experience is that for years I did what you are advocating. I practiced fast because I wanted to be fast. And I was pretty fast, but I also regularly found myself up against walls where I could never seem to go faster, so I started reading up on the subject.

But if you want something more mundane: My typing speed is over 2x the average typing speed for male typists. Closer to 3x.

You're either confused about what's being discussed here or misunderstanding that research you refer to, if it even applies here.

Or you have a cognitive bias that leaves you unable to accept a different point of view.

The speed which Ankeny refers to is known and practiced by ALL the top guns in USPSA and IDPA. Again, this is not idle speculation, but observed and/or experienced FACT.

I can't speak for Ankeny, but when people start throwing around "by ALL," whatever they are claiming is usually more hyperbole than fact.

I couldn't possibly know what is known and practiced by all of any group (and neither could you), but I have read quite a bit about how to shoot faster, and most of it agrees with what I have been saying. Concentrate on quality skill development because speed is a result of mastery, not a form of mastery.

That has been my experience, too. My great "aha!" moment when learning to play the guitar, for example, was when I stopped trying to blaze through fingering exercises as fast as my nerves could twitch, and started paying attention to the details and nuances of what I was doing. Not so ironically, my speed improved too.

I can't really give a similar example for shooting because I didn't go through a push-for-speed phase with guns.

Ankeny reached the level of Grandmaster in USPSA and you cannot reach that level by NOT learning how to GO FAST and practicing to GO FAST.

Again, I will let Ankeny argue his own points if he disagrees with me.

How about you?

How about me what? Can I join a virtual "whose is longer" contest?

I've taught 100's of people to accurately shoot faster than they ever thought they could before lunch time. Faster still after lunch.

And that amazes me. Not that people can shoot faster...most shooters are very very slow...but...well, to be blunt, based on your persona here I wouldn't choose you as an instructor. It goes to show how online impressions are probably very different than real life.

How about you? What personal experiences do you have regarding shooting accurately at speed?

You do realize that such personal experiences are utterly irrelevant to the subject, right? It is like asking an organic chemist to prove her credentials by telling you about cakes she has baked. But I'll play along.

I am a computer guy. My very first job, the first thing I ever did for pay, was to help with the development of a computer game which used a "light gun" as an input. Light guns worked in conjunction with raster scan CRT monitors (that's your old school television from before flat panels took over) to detect where on the screen the gun was pointed when a button (positioned where the trigger on a pistol is generally located) is depressed. So you point the "gun", push the button, and the timing of the electron beam in the CRT when it swept through wherever the " gun" was pointing tell the computer where the "hit" occurred. Over the months I worked on it, I of course had to use the game (can't really call it playing) frequently. Accuracy mattered because we were using smallish monitors and had to hit exactly the right spot for a hit to register. Speed mattered both because the targets moved and because in order to test something at the end of a level you pretty much had to play through the whole level. Being able to do that in a minute instead of the 20 minutes a player might spend was an important productivity skill.

Two things happened. First, probably due to bloating code from new features being added, the game got incredibly easy. I had to adjust the difficulty up several times. Second, I discovered that the manufacturer of the light guns was just doing a really shoddy job and the bleeping things broke after only a couple months.

Actually, three things happened. At the end of my development efforts the game went to a test group who reported the game as defective and unfinishable. None of the testers could even get through the first level. Upon hearing that I went to the test area, gathered up the testers, and with them watching I worked my way through the game in about 20 minutes. After some frank discussion, and an adjustment of the difficulty level back down, the testers had a few weeks to practice they could play through it in 90 minutes and it took me about 10.

I don't shoot IDPA or USPA, but I am fairly certain I was (and probably remain) the world grand champion ultra uber meister of that particular shooting game.

Interesting side note: And I never once practiced. I played the game thousands of times, sometimes several times an hour, working 12 hours a day, for blurred together months, but always to test the software. I made no effort to get better.

How about you? Do you have reasonable claim to being the best in the world at any shooting games?

As far as the loud smokey type of of gun, I am better than I was 10 years ago. Everyone thinks they are better than average though.

Kleanbore
June 24, 2014, 10:01 AM
Posted by David E: All the street punks I dealt with or arrested weren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.Their intellect is not all that relevant.

Look up some YouTube videos titled "carjacker gets shot" or "clerk shoots robber," etc. MOST of the time, the bad guy tries to get out of there ASAP and does nothing else. Other times, the robber shoots while retreating. A few show the robber ducking behind the counter and taking shots over the counter with his gun raised up like a periscope. But dang few and show the robber trying to outflank the clerk who is shooting back.Sounds reasonable, but to predict behavior, or to assess likely behavior, one would have to do a more scientific analysis than viewing "some" videos and deciding what seems to happen "most of the time".

And the discussion was about multiple assailants. In response to Rusty Shackelford's statement "secondary bad guys(robbers) more than likely will move in on your flanks or try to get around you/behind you", you said that they would instead be likely to run. Maybe, and maybe not. The dynamics of a multiple attack may well be different. I said before, when one is referring to accomplices, each of the accomplices would have to first recognize that it is the victim, and not one of his compatriots, who is in fact doing the shooting, and then decide very quickly what course of action represents his best chance. Is it to try to overcome the shooter before getting shot, or to outrun bullets? Would he have any chance at all of doing the latter? Does he stand any chance at all of escaping without the defender's car and/or family member as a hostage?

That requires a quick decision by someone who, if he has already served time, has likely trained for hours on end for the occasion, and it will likely spend upon mental health, level of desperation, distance from the defender, where the participants are who can see what, and other circumstances.

If shooting, or shooting at, one assailant does the trick, great. But I don't think one can assume that that would be the likely outcome. One has to assume that the perps were already in close quarters when the trouble started; the second ones may well be even closer after the first shots are fired; and fleeing may not seem to be the best choice for the perps at the time.

Who knows what will happen?

One thing we do know is that is is more likely than not that there will be more than one of them.

David E
June 24, 2014, 10:17 AM
I'll keep it simple.

Ankeny responded to:

Speed is the enemy of quality practice.

By saying:

Not is you're practicing speed.

Ed said:


There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions. Once you have mastered the skills you can shoot for speed (so to speak) but if you skip the initial slow practice it will be much harder to build up real speed

Ed needlessly introduced qualifiers and prerequisites, implying that Ankeny and everyone else is unaware of them. Nowhere has anyone suggested one should go fast before you have the proper movements down.

As I and others have said, speed doesn't "just happen" by itself. It must be specifically and properly pursued. If Ed kept hitting walls, then he probably wasn't practicing properly. His research book notwithstanding.

I mention Grandmaster because most people understand that to reach the rank of GM, not only do the fundamentals need to be mastered, but the added element of speed is required.

Speed, as in shooting fast, is a fairly simple concept, but is very misunderstood, as we see here. Trying to discuss the concept on a forum is difficult enough without someone wanting to argue why the sky isn't really blue.

David E
June 24, 2014, 11:13 AM
Let's look at the various ranks of USPSA, as I think it might help understand a few things.

Let's take the classic shooting drill, the El Presidente as currently set up. Three IPSC targets, spaced one yard apart from each other are 10 yds down range. The shooter faces up range (back to targets) with wrists above shoulders. At signal, the shooter turns, draws, shoots each target twice, does a speed reload and reengages each target with two shots each.

So, turn, draw, 2-2-2, reload, 2-2-2. There are 60 points possible.

Let's compare the speed required for the top of each class. We will presume Limited and Production Division times, as that's the type of gun most folks here carry. We will also presume all 60 points are earned, since they typically are.

A "D" class shooter at 40% shoots it in 13.89 seconds. Most people start out in D class.

A "C"class at 60% shoots it in 9.25 seconds. A quick aside here: once upon a time, 10 seconds clean was considered "very good." In fact, I won several non-IPSC shooting matches, scored 100% on our quarterly qualifications, etc, while I was a C class shooter. I'd say that a high C shooter is a better shot than 90% + of typical gunowners.

A "B" class at 75% shoots it in 7.40 seconds.

An "A" class at 85% shoots it in 6.54

A Master class at 95% shoots it in 5.85 seconds.

A Grandmaster at 100% shoots it in 5.55 seconds.

Starting out, there's a lot of "fat" that can be quickly and easily cut out....if you know where to start.

But as you improve, the fat gets harder for you to spot and harder to trim, since you don't know where or what it is. (Even if you read some research on the topic)

But there's a way to do it!

But I'm not really discussing how to improve from 95% to 100%, but about how to cut out the big chunks of fat that'll take folks from a 40% skill level to 60% or higher.

I don't know about you, but I'd love to increase my skill level by 50%

Never shoot faster than you can hit.

Speedy accuracy matters at a match, but it matters in a gunfight more.

Ed Ames
June 24, 2014, 11:44 AM
There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions. Once you have mastered the skills you can shoot for speed (so to speak) but if you skip the initial slow practice it will be much harder to build up real speed
Ed needlessly introduced qualifiers and prerequisites, implying that Ankeny and everyone else is unaware of them. Nowhere has anyone suggested one should go fast before you have the proper movements down.

Dave, you continue to misconstrue that statement. Repetition will not make your claim more valid.

Let's saysome one makes a statement like this

Statement: "X is not the enemy of Y if you are Ying X." This is the statement I was addressing.

Examples:Speed is not the enemy of practice if you are practicing speed. Chocolate is not the enemy of diet if you are dieting on chocolate.

In order for that to be true, X must be something which can be Yed. For example, chocolate must be something you can diet on. If it is not, the statement is nonsensical.

In the context of speed and practice, practice applies to skills. A person who is trying to logically expres (vs simply declaring) that speed is a quality of skills rather than a skill itself, and thereby show why the statement is wrong, would say something like this:

"There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions."

I did not introduce qualifiers and prerequisites. I disagreed with the premise that speed is a skill which can be practiced independently of other skills. I described how you properly "practice for speed", which is to say you practice the skills needed to be fast.

I disagreed. Politely, and with reasons explaining why. This should not be so mind boggling.

GoWolfpack
June 24, 2014, 11:55 AM
It's pretty obvious we're obsessed with the idea that we must choose to either be fast OR be accurate.

Vern Humphrey
June 24, 2014, 12:00 PM
In defensive shooting, as in many other things, perfection is the enemy of good enough.

David E
June 24, 2014, 12:26 PM
I disagreed with the premise that speed is a skill which can be practiced independently of other skills.

And by so doing you disagreed with something he did not say, espouse, promote or believe.

I described how you properly "practice for speed", which is to say you practice the skills needed to be fast.



We call those people "C" class.

Ed Ames
June 24, 2014, 12:39 PM
And by so doing you disagreed with something he did not say, espouse, promote or believe.

Not that it matters, but why are you speaking for him? He said something I take to mean he believes you can "practice speed". I disagree with him. Now you are telling me what he believes. Does he want you doing that?

We call those people "C" class

Another put-down?

David E
June 24, 2014, 01:09 PM
I spent quite a bit of time saying that "C" class shooters are better than 90% of typical gunowners, so how is it a putdown?

To clarify, C class is about where people end up if all they do is practice the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" concept. It'll take them past 90% of everyone else.

But there is more to be learned beyond C class.

David E
June 24, 2014, 01:50 PM
To answer the original question, "Are we too obsessed with speed?"

If you go faster than you can hit, then you're too obsessed.

But most people can hit faster than they think, so the goal becomes hitting with increasing speed.

I think most would agree that a fast hit beats a slow hit.

Ed Ames
June 24, 2014, 01:59 PM
To clarify, C class is about where people end up if all they do is practice the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" concept. It'll take them past 90% of everyone else.

What does "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" have to do with anything I said?

I said, "There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions." How did you get from there to me saying, "slow is smooth and smooth is fast"?

Smoothness is, in that context, a measure of/synonym for efficiency. For a given amount of applied strength, greater efficiency will be faster (less wasted effort/time). However, What does it mean to have a smooth perception of your target? Nothing. The most time-critical skills are mental, not physical, and therefore "smoothness" doesn't apply. They are still skills, and still need high quality practice.

40-82
June 24, 2014, 02:09 PM
DavidE,

Fascinating post about the El Presidente. Times change. I remember winning an El President in an IPSC match. I believe the year was 1980. My time was 9 seconds, and I definitely remember that I did not have all A hits. Everyone there was stunned that anyone could shoot so fast and keep everything on the paper. The next year at an indoor range too small for everyone to stand inside and watch the competitors shoot the El Presidente stage, I heard what sounded like a continuous roar of shooting come from the inside range area. I assumed it was someone emptying his gun downrange without a serious attempt to hit the targets, throwing the match maybe out of frustration. I was wrong. It was Don Middlebrooks shooting an El Presidente in 7 seconds. Within a month in my practice sessions I was beating that time, as measured by a hand held stopwatch. From the times you've posted I see that speed and accuracy that were unheard of then are now commonplace.

Part of what I needed to get as far as I did, ordinary as it is now, was the belief that it could be done, that and at least a quarter of a million 45 ACP bullets dropped out of a two-cavity mold. We all worked pretty hard in those days with what would now be considered primitive equipment. The wife of one of the best competitors I shot against told me once that the sight of RCBS Green made her ill. Apparently her husband had insisted that she crank those handles more than a few times.

I agree that slow and smooth is the safest way to master fundamentals, but at some point a shooter has to decide if he is content with what he has or whether he wants to push for more.

murf
June 24, 2014, 02:38 PM
40-82,

so, how did you get from 9 seconds down to 7? was it just the realization that you could go faster, a change in your shooting methods, a new weapon, or just a whole bunch more ammo down range?

how to get quicker is much more important to me than just saying i need to get quicker. any help with the "how" of getting quicker is greatly appreciated.

murf

460Kodiak
June 24, 2014, 02:56 PM
I don't think we are too obsessed. Speed is an important part of defending yourself and family. That being said, I think murf put it really well with

speed and precision are inversely proportional. practice will increase both, but the shooter gets to decide what speed/precision ratio they want for a given scenario.

one still needs to adopt a process, or method to "get proficient".

David E
June 24, 2014, 03:35 PM
40-82

Interesting that once you know what's possible, it becomes motivation to improve your own skills.

I remember shooting a stage that started with 3 fairly close targets. Everyone, including me, sounded like:

bang, bang.....bang, bang.....bang, bang.

Until Ron Petersen with his stock Sig 226 went:

bangbangbangbangbangbang

Each shot as fast as the one before, even tho he was transitioning between targets after every second shot.

Learned a lot from those 6 shots 25 years ago.

Murf, get the Jerry Barnhart tapes, read Enos and Plaxco. You'll break thru that wall pretty fast. (no pun intended!)

40-82
June 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
Murf,

Part of shooting a faster El Presidente was just the realization that it could be done. Bear in mind that before I started shooting in IPSC that the only thing I knew about the El Presidente was a standard I read from Jeff Cooper that said that 10 seconds was very good. I used a series '70 Colt 45ACP with no accuracy work other than a trigger job and larger sights. I do remember spending a lot of time practicing a quick magazine change with an ordinary open top magazine holder worn in the standard carry position on the left hip. The magazine holder I had then was sewn out of canvas and not as good as the Bianchi magazine holder I have now. I eventually wore holes in it and had to discard it. To facilitate sliding the magazine into the gun, the bottom of the magazine was slightly relieved and nothing else. I spent hours standing over a mattress to protect my empty magazine as I dropped the magazine, and inserted a fresh one. My goal, I had no way to exactly measure this, was to make an accurate shot after the magazine change in about the time it took for the empty magazine to hit the ground.

I was stubborn then, and used an inside the waistband holster, a crudely made affair, since worn out that is not nearly as nice or as fast as the Milt Sparks holster I sometimes wear now, although mostly now I use outside the waistband, strong side, a much faster holster. One change I made about that time was dropping the speed safety and replacing it with the standard Cold safety. I learned that if I was going to hit anything from the draw, I had to grip the gun exactly the same way every time. More may be known now about proper grip than it was then, but one thing I learned quickly was that whatever grip you settled on, it needed to be consistent, and the smaller safety forced me to do that. If I could hit that standard safety, I could hit my grip. Other than that it was just a matter of thousands of rounds downrange. Looking back I didn't have the resources to be involved in what I was trying to do. I reloaded the scrounged military cases I had so many times that often I had to file the dinged rims to get them to fit into the shell holder. Needless to say using cases that old for practice sometimes I'd start a good string and then have to deal with a failure to feed. With moderately new parts and cases with less than five firings, the old Colt worked with extreme reliability.

It also helped to break things down into individual stages. Before investing in the necessary number of paper targets and ammunition to shoot a complete El Presidente, it helped to concentrate on getting two good hits on the first target from the leather. One of the habits I had to break myself of was looking at my shots. I wanted to know where my shots went on the first target before I switched to the next one. I had to learn that either I had good hits or I didn't. After I pulled the trigger I needed to think about the shot I was making not the last one that I could never get back. If I didn't do well I needed to go back to that phase, isolate it, and work on it more. You can easily see what a time killer the habit of trying to see where your shots went can be. I had to learn to believe that I could do something exactly right without taking the time for visual confirmation.

Thanks for asking the question, Murf. It brings back a lot of good memories, but that was almost 35 years ago, and only a description of how I tried to work things out on my own. There are professional shooters on this site and professional teachers who know the latest and best techniques. Take anything I have to say on the subject as the antiquated trivia it is and not as a recommendation.

murf
June 24, 2014, 04:29 PM
david e,

re: post #88

same question i asked 40-82, how do you get from 14 seconds to six seconds? don't need specifics, just general methods and/or practices.

nice to see time reduction follows the typical learning curve.

murf

murf
June 24, 2014, 04:39 PM
40-82,

thanks for the reply. there are plenty of youtube videos and books to read on ipsc training and techniques, and websites like bnos. just wanted another opinion on the "how to get there".

sounds like a lot of rounds down-range, with a lot of technique "adjustments".

again, thanks for the reply.

murf

David E
June 24, 2014, 05:10 PM
david e,

re: post #88

same question i asked 40-82, how do you get from 14 seconds to six seconds? don't need specifics, just general methods and/or practices.

murf


As I say in class, shooting fast involves a myriad of subtleties.

There is no ONE thing to do that'll result in fast hits, it's a host of little things that add up.

But here are some key, general tips;

Don't fight your equipment.

Holster should allow a full firing grip and fit your contours.

Don't chase or verify your shots while shooting.

Sights that can be seen at speed.

Don't "dwell" on the sights- when the sights are there, shoot!

Don't ask yourself questions while shooting

Learn what a "flash" sight picture is. Proper technique let's you do this very quickly. If it does not, you need to adjust your technique.

Lead with your eyes.

Focus fast.

Be smooth and efficient.

Create time and utilize it by going fast.

Once you have the basics down, try this: do an El Prez as fast as you can hit the target anywhere. Note the time. Then note the hits. You just showed yourself how fast you can physically go thru the required motions for the drill, so now you just need to bring the accuracy up by "seeing" fast. This will bring down the speed wall you've been hitting and you'll begin to progress further.

Those are some highlights. If you're confused by any, I can amplify if needed.

Sunray
June 24, 2014, 05:11 PM
"...C zone hits..." Hi. That indicates IPSC or IDPA shooting. Both are games. Neither of which are in the least bit practical. Being fast and relatively accurate isthe whole point of those games.
The gunfighters of the past, most of whose exploits were, um, shall we say enhanced by the likes of Ned Buntline, et al, weren't playing a game. Accuracy ended a fight much quicker than fast. Mind you, real 19th Century gun fights were few and far between.

David E
June 24, 2014, 05:40 PM
And a fast hit ended the fight quicker than a slow hit.

murf
June 24, 2014, 05:50 PM
david e,

a couple of questions:

focus fast - focus on what exactly?

what does "chase your shots" mean?

can you give an example of a holster that will give a "full firing grip"?

thanks for the tips.

murf

BSA1
June 24, 2014, 06:36 PM
While David E. stubbornly sticks to his position that speed over all, "a fast hit ended a fight quicker than a slow hit" I'm left wondering if those that advocate speed somehow believe if they are shot first they are DRT?

The biggest factor in surviving a gunfight is mental attitude and the will to survive at all costs. While I have never been shot I have been attacked when I was unarmed by criminals stronger and younger than me and with edged weapons several times. I prevailed in every attack primarily because of my will to survive regardless of the odds against me and the fact I cheated ever way I could. From firsthand experience in hospital emergency rooms I know most gunshots are survivable.

If you have the mindset than a gunshot wound is lethal than you have defeated yourself before the fight begins.

David E
June 24, 2014, 06:37 PM
david e,

a couple of questions:

focus fast - focus on what exactly?

Basically, it means to accelerate your focus so that when things align properly, you know it immediately and take the shot. Or consider it as "focus hard," blocking out everything that doesn't affect the shot.

what does "chase your shots" mean?


It means don't look over your sights to see where the shot hit. If you were paying attention to the front sight when you fired, you already know where the shot went.

can you give an example of a holster that will give a "full firing grip"?

It's any holster that allows a full, unobstructed firing grip while the gun is fully in the holster.

David E
June 24, 2014, 06:51 PM
While David E. stubbornly sticks to his position that speed over all, "a fast hit ended a fight quicker than a slow hit"

If the same hypothetical gunfight ended with a slow hit, wouldn't it end sooner with a fast hit?

I'm left wondering if those that advocate speed somehow believe if they are shot first they are DRT?

Who said that they believe that? I know I NEVER have said that.

The biggest factor in surviving a gunfight is mental attitude and the will to survive at all costs.

Not in and of itself. In our officer involved shooting I mentioned earlier, the grizzled Sgt was struck in the chest with a .380 FMJ. He never wore a vest because, as he said multiple times, he "was too ugly to die."

He never got off a shot. He did manage to draw his gun as he staggered back out the door. This was praised by some. But he still died.

His mental attitude was very strong, but broken easily by a disturbed puke and a 95 grain chunk of lead.

The survival mindset is helped immensely by tactics and skill. And I would put them in that order.

Sam1911
June 24, 2014, 06:57 PM
While David E. stubbornly sticks to his position that speed over all, "a fast hit ended a fight quicker than a slow hit" I'm left wondering if those that advocate speed somehow believe if they are shot first they are DRT?

A) There really isn't any version of a gun fight in which "oh, I don't need to go that fast because I'll probably live through getting shot" applies. Not for me anyway. So, to me, speed is an important element of the equation because while my first goal is survival, damaging the other guy before, and to the extent that, I don't get shot at all is really RIGHT there in the number two slot.

B) Getting A hit vastly increases your likelihood of getting another hit, and another, while your attacker's odds of responding are not good after one hit, right bad after two, and dwindling probably exponentially after that. A decent shot can place well-aimed shots on target at about 4-5 per second. You want to be that decent shot, making those hits. Not trading shots with an adversary. You want your force to be overwhelming. (Your attacker already has advantage of action over reaction.) As one trainer I worked with years ago liked to say, "take cover behind the wall of bullets."

David E
June 24, 2014, 07:44 PM
A) There really isn't any version of a gun fight in which "oh, I don't need to go that fast because I'll probably live through getting shot" applies. Not for me anyway. So, to me, speed is an important element of the equation because while my first goal is survival, damaging the other guy before, and to the extent that, I don't get shot at all is really RIGHT there in the number two slot.

B) Getting A hit vastly increases your likelihood of getting another hit, and another, while your attacker's odds of responding are not good after one hit, right bad after two, and dwindling probably exponentially after that. A decent shot can place well-aimed shots on target at about 4-5 per second. You want to be that decent shot, making those hits. Not trading shots with an adversary. You want your force to be overwhelming. (Your attacker already has advantage of action over reaction.) As one trainer I worked with years ago liked to say, "take cover behind the wall of bullets."


Very well said.

Ankeny
June 24, 2014, 09:14 PM
First off, I am not interested in arguing rhetoric. Nor do I want someting I state in layman's terms to become cannon fodder for some debate about logic being one of the most important branches of philosophical argumentation. Pretty simple ground rules.

My remark about speed not being the enemy of practice if one is practicing speed was really little more than me stirring the pot. On a more serious note, speed is a critical element when practicing (developing) skills that need to be performed quickly. I do understand that speed can inhibit quality practice. Take something as simple as a reload. If one practices (exercises or what ever we want to call it) speed reloads at a pace that is beyond their capabilities, they will actually allow their skills to deteriorate in the quest for speed, and end up fumbling the reload, hurling the magazine into the ceiling fan, and so forth. I get that.

I know this thread is about speed as it applies to self defense, but the thread has drifted into developing shooting skills that are to be performed at high speed regardless of the setting. I will probably ramble a bit so hang in there. I don't want this to sound arrogant, but at times I find it hard to explain high speed performance shooting to folks who have not experienced high speed performance first hand. I will give it a shot. (pun intended)

Let's take a simple drill, at the buzzer draw and shoot a metric IPSC target placed at ten yards in the "C" zone or better, perform a reload, and shoot one more round to the "C" zone or better. The goal is to perform the drill in under two seconds eight out of ten times.

The elements that need to be developed include listening/reaction time to the audible signal, visual skills for making the shots and for "looking" the magazine into the magazine well, a pretty sporty draw must be developed, and a quick fumble free reload is absolutely needed. Trigger manipulation needs to be appropriate for the shot. Those elements require some repetitions. When I am performing reps against the clock, I call it "practice". If Ed wants to call it "exercising", I am OK with that.

Ed is correct, the draw, the reload, etc. are best developed in their early stages through delberate practice at a slow pace. Some even teach the presentation in a slow deliberate fashion in foward motion and in reverse motion. After the fundamentals of the draw, reload, and making and calling the shot are mastered, next comes the goal of putting it all together in 2 seconds or less for our little drill. For most of us, that will take substantial dry fire and a lot of live fire.

OK, I agree it would be tough to practice the concept/action of "speed" without assocition to a task. Even when working on the mental game and doing visualization, the concept of "speed" is associated with a task. David E and I both know what it takes to get there and we both have experienced what it is like to shoot at high speed. I also know from reading some of David's posts that we are on the same page as far as what it takes to develop high speed gun manipulation skills. Here is where I suspect we might part company with Ed...but I won't know for sure until he replies.

The quest for speed can be a deadly and unforgiving trap. The idea that one needs to learn the skills and allow speed to eventually develop is also a trap and one of the most damaging "old wive's tales" in the shooting community. Yeah, develop the fundamentals and initial skills at an appropriate pace (slow in the beginning) but from there you need to push, push, and push some more. That is best done through reduced par time drills for each element, and for the overall task. Identify your comfort zone, and then push beyond. Speed is your friend as long as you think of it as a goal. Observe what you are doing, be aware of each element, and reserve judgemental thoughts until after the task is performed.

Once you have a sub one second draw, and a one and small change reload, it is time to put it all together. In order for me to consitently draw, shoot, reload, and shoot again in under two seconds I need to be in the zone. Yeah, I know...what the heck is the "zone". For me the zone is where I am fully aware of what my body and the gun are doing at all times, and I am simply observing what I am doing without judgement, and without thoughts of trying to go fast. My focus is shifting from element to element without unnecessarly thinking of what to do next.

So, some of you might think I have just spewed forth a dissertation of bull pucky. Is it really possible to draw, shoot, reload, and shoot again (with good hits) in under 2 seconds while shifiting focus (mental not visual) from element to element, call the shots, and remain aware of what is happening in real time? Absolutely. Does this little drill require "practicing" each element and the elements in combination at "speed". I guess that depends on who you ask.

40-82
June 24, 2014, 09:14 PM
Slow and accurate will save you in a fight provided that you don't run into someone who is a)lucky or b) fast and accurate or c) comes with friends.

I don't recommend shooting faster than you can hit and hoping for luck, but I will say that any of the fast and accurate shooters who I have known well enough to learn anything about them worked as hard as circumstances allowed to improve both their speed and their accuracy.

BSA1
June 24, 2014, 09:45 PM
There are circumstances where it is probable you will get shot. For example a robber holding a gun on you tells you to kneel down. To me that means he is going to execute me so I going for my roscoe. Knowing that I am going to take at least one bullet should I go for fast and furious or accurate A hit(s)?

Ed Ames
June 24, 2014, 10:25 PM
The idea that one needs to learn the skills and allow speed to eventually develop is also a trap and one of the most damaging "old wive's tales" in the shooting community.

I never said anything close to "allow speed to eventually develop".

I said you should practice the skills necessary for speed using good practice methodology, and that speed is a product of skill not a skill itself.

E.g. this is something I practice: Choose my targets, and from low ready or a holster (depending on where I am/the local range rules) raise the weapon to the first target, so that as soon as I perceive sight alignment I fire, then shift to second target while the gun settles in my hand and *boom* there goes that target, and so on.

What skills am I practicing? A short list would include kinesthetic skills of raising the weapon properly so that the sights are aligned, perception skills to recognize that the sights are aligned over target, reaction skills to integrate pulling the trigger with the other motions, explosive body movement skills to transition from one target to the next - and/or - shooting while the gun is in motion so that you are not stopping for each target.

How do I practice? When I am practicing it is for quality. Why? Because eventually you stop practicing and incorporate the skills into your repertoire, and when that happens you want them to be as good as possible. From that point you aren't practicing, you are shooting. If you are shooting to condition your muscles you could call it training (the way a marathon runner trains).

When I practice how fast am I going? Quite slow by my standards. That's the point. I want to be able to do it perfectly, and know I am, and recognize and correct mistakes - all things I don't have time for when actually doing.

When I execute the skills I have practiced, how fast am I? Still probably not very fast by your standards, but I can hit a couple targets in under a second (and yes, I have used a shot timer, though not often in the last 8-or-so years since there isn't much point at the public ranges I have access to now). I have hit multiple objects simultaneously thrown without warning while they were still in the air (that was playing with a friend's S&W Governor, not something I would do with any of my guns for safety reasons).

I do not participate in competitive sports, largely because I have a heavy competitive streak and know from experience that it would end up dominating my life at the expense of other things I value, so I can't relate my performance to typical competitive ranks, but I didn't see anything in David's list ("Don't "dwell" on the sights- when the sights are there, shoot!", etc.) that is in conflict with what I have been saying and doing.

One thing I will add: I am also a musician. I know a lot about the difference between practicing and performing. When I'm in my musical zone I can buzz right along, holding tempos many struggle with...but that is not how I practice, it's how I PLAY.

DT Guy
June 24, 2014, 10:58 PM
If practicing the fundamentals was all that was required to eventually get fast, Ed, Indy drivers could drive perfectly, with perfect form, around parking lots at 20 MPH, to practice racing.

The practice of speed requires, at some point, struggling to go faster in practice. Both the physical ability to move more quickly (and the muscle memory it can ingrain) and the sheer practice of moving at speed. There isn't a way around it, anymore than you can practice eighth notes at 100 BPM in practice and expect to play sixty-fourth notes at 300 BPM when performing....


Larry

Ed Ames
June 25, 2014, 02:38 AM
DT,

1) The proper speed of practice is not an arbitrary speed such as 20 MPH. It is the speed at which you can perceive, and make corrections to, what you are doing. In other words, it is a deliberate pace. That is always going to be slow relative to your maximum pace, but in terms of MPH "slow" may be 2MPH or 2000MPH.

2) I am not talking about practicing fundementals to eventually get fast. Not even close. I said "Pactice the skills necessary for speed using good practice methodology." Can you practice the skills necessary for speed in an indy car at 20MPH? No. Not on pavement. Skills necessary for speed in driving include controlling the car at (and beyond) traction limits (drifting, balancing cornering and braking traction, etc), familiarity with aerodynamic effects, et cetera. You can practice them slowly and deliberately though. It really looks like people who are arguing against me are actually arguing with some imagined position instead of what I am actually saying.

3) Where, in anything I wrote, did you get the idea that practicing doesn't involve making an effort to go faster? Seriously. And, practicing 8th notes to play 64th...someone needs to print you up a "Save the Straw Men" bumper sticker. Going faster almost always involves a different technique - different skills - than can be used when going slowly. To keep things simple, a guitar player may play an 8th note by plucking the string, a 16th note with a hammer-on, a 32nd note by basically strumming across multiple strings (so the finger speed may actually be lower), and 64th notes with a cordless drill with a pick in the chuck. If you want to play 64ths at 300BPM you are going to need to practice with the electric drill, but you don't need to start out at 300 BPM.

Sam1911
June 25, 2014, 08:02 AM
There are circumstances where it is probable you will get shot. For example a robber holding a gun on you tells you to kneel down. To me that means he is going to execute me so I going for my roscoe. Knowing that I am going to take at least one bullet should I go for fast and furious or accurate A hit(s)?
There are some unknowns here, but I'd say explosiveness of action is the only thing that's going to give you a prayer. With the guy that close on you you aren't going to need to try for accurate "A" zone hits as you'll likely be shooting from retention or some other extreme close-quarters position. "Fast and furious" would be one way to describe it.

If I decide that shooting is my only way out, I'm going to attempt explosively move to disrupt/block (if possible) and put bullets into the guy at better than 5-per-second until either my lights go out, or his do.

I can promise you with all my heart that I'm not going to take cool aim and try to shoot him in the spinal cord or ocular window while he's putting a bullet in my skull, execution style.

Kleanbore
June 25, 2014, 09:06 AM
Posted by Ed Ames:.... this is something I practice: Choose my targets, and from low ready or a holster (depending on where I am/the local range rules) raise the weapon to the first target, so that as soon as I perceive sight alignment I fire, then shift to second target while the gun settles in my hand and *boom* there goes that target, and so on.

What skills am I practicing? A short list would include kinesthetic skills of raising the weapon properly so that the sights are aligned, perception skills to recognize that the sights are aligned over target, reaction skills to integrate pulling the trigger with the other motions, explosive body movement skills to transition from one target to the next - and/or - shooting while the gun is in motion so that you are not stopping for each target.

How do I practice? When I am practicing it is for quality. Why? Because eventually you stop practicing and incorporate the skills into your repertoire, and when that happens you want them to be as good as possible.That is fine for situations in which you know where the target is beforehand and need the precision afforded by your sights, but that is not the only thing to practice.

I do not want to try to come across as a self-proclaimed expert, but trying to employ those skills in an unexpected and explosive close quarters encounter might well get you killed.

Might I recommend this (http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/product/counter-ambush-science-training-unexpected-defensive-shooting/) for more on that.

David E
June 25, 2014, 09:07 AM
The practice of speed requires, at some point, struggling to go faster in practice. Both the physical ability to move more quickly and the sheer practice of moving at speed.


This is absolutely correct. And this is where many people scratch their heads.

Let me reiterate the importance of FIRST learning to perform the skill correctly, smoothly and efficiently.

Only then are you ready to practice/develop speed. But there is no substitute for accelerated movement drills.

"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" won't get you there. Thinking you'll just "let it happen" when you need to be fast, even tho you've never practiced it, is a mistake.

Becoming faster while retaining accuracy is a deliberate pursuit.

Ed Ames
June 25, 2014, 09:58 AM
That is fine for situations in which you know where the target is beforehand and need the precision afforded by your sights, but that is not the only thing to practice.

I do not want to try to come across as a self-proclaimed expert, but trying to employ those skills in an unexpected and explosive close quarters encounter might well get you killed.

I agree, more or less.

Considering that when I raise the gun the sights are already aligned well enough to fire, and I can fire without arresting the momentum of the gun first, which means I don't need to accelerate from zero towards the second target, I am not sure how much time is actually lost to my technique, but yes if I was shooting for precision when ambushed in an alley by muggers or the like I would probably not enjoy the outcome.

The problem for me comes down to opportunity to exercise skill. If you don't have that, you will plateau at a relatively low level. Well, I can't afford to shoot 250,000 rounds of .45 per year (and do everything else I want to do) so I don't have the opportunity to exercise that some people have. On the other hand I am not a prohibited person with a stolen gun and I can/do go to shooting ranges regularly so I have a lot more opportunity than many of the people who commit violent property crimes on strangers (the group I am mosy likely to have an armed encounter with) have. So I think I'm probably doing as well as I can given my circumstances.

This will sound somewhat conceited (I guess that's not new for me on this thread), but: I spent much of my childhood/young adulthood in the downtown area of fairly large (by US standards) city, so I am pretty familiar with the practical side of situational awareness. I have probably told this story before, but: An example of my neighborhood was that I was driving towards my parking spot (less than 20 feet from my front door) and my gut said "go around" so I kept driving. I looped around and approached from the other direction just a few minutes later to find someone on the ground near my front door. Turns out there was a mugger waiting. Had I stopped, well, bad news for me. I didn't. The guy on the ground was a pedestrian who had his wallet stolen and his head hit. There were many other incidents...a guy who tried to ambush from behind a telephone pole, a whole bunch of "interviews", etc.. I'm still fairly paranoid (" aware", if you prefer) though paranoia is a perishable skill like everything else.

I guess you could say that is another area where I think being obsessed with reaction speed is missing the big picture of being safe.

Kleanbore
June 25, 2014, 11:09 AM
Posted by Ed Ames: Considering that when I raise the gun the sights are already aligned well enough to fire, and I can fire without arresting the momentum of the gun first, which means I don't need to accelerate from zero towards the second target, I am not sure how much time is actually lost to my technique, but yes if I was shooting for precision when ambushed in an alley by muggers or the like I would probably not enjoy the outcome.Sights and alignment are part of it, and being able to recognize instantly the need to shoot at something that you have not been thinking about is the other--or at least one other.

But do read the book. It is not about how to shoot your firearm.

Not too many books on the subject make one think, but this one does.

Ed Ames
June 25, 2014, 01:28 PM
I'll ask my library if they have a copy.

Ankeny
June 25, 2014, 02:38 PM
I never said anything close to "allow speed to eventually develop". I didn't attribute that to you. I was simply making an observation.

Ed Ames
June 25, 2014, 03:04 PM
I didn't attribute that to you. I was simply making an observation.
Fair enough.

I am perhaps a bit twitchy because it seems as though the people in this thread who think I am wrong think I am saying that (or some variation on that). I don't mind people thinking I am wrong for the ideas I hold, but it is ... frustrating ... when they think I am wrong for something that has nothing to do with anything I have said, or would agree with.

I suspect the "difference" in what we are saying really boils down to me differentiating practice and training (used in the "exercise" sense, not "being taught") as two phases of development which have different needs. I am something of a skill collector by nature so the distinction has practical and reoccurring value to me. Of course I, like everyone else, assume that something that has practical value to me would be useful to everyone, but perhaps the distinction is meaningless in your world.

couldbeanyone
June 25, 2014, 10:30 PM
Well, I guess I have my answer. After five pages of testimony about how incredibly fast some people are, and how to win ipsc matches, and how to practice ,or not, to get faster, I would have to say that we are pretty obsessed with speed. Whether too obsessed or not I will leave up to you.

I do find it interesting though, that it is pretty easy to find accounts of even ipsc shooters firing ten or so rounds and hitting nothing, then reminding themselves to slow down and getting a hit.

It is also pretty easy to find accounts of people getting killed while trying to reload after shooting their gun dry.

However, after five pages, only David E way back in post number nine even attempted to give an account of not shooting fast enough splits causing a bad outcome in a real shooting. His story being something he heard "back when he was an officer" about a ppc shooter who "center punched the first two before the third robber shot and killed him." Some though, might say that center punching two opponents is pretty good performance compared to folks firing ten rounds and hitting nothing.

Thanks to all who have participated as I have found it very interesting.

Sam1911
June 26, 2014, 07:18 AM
It is always very reassuring to know the answer you want before you start asking.

couldbeanyone
June 26, 2014, 07:39 AM
Nice tongue in cheek smart responce. Nicely dismissive. Wouldn't have asked if I hadn't thought that perhaps someone else knew of some real world, not IPSC gaming, related accounts of shootings.

We are on page six, and I have still gotten only things like, "truth be known, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C." While this sounds nice, we all know this is not true. If it were, Jerry Miculek would never miss in competition. Try shooting an IPSC course of fire running as fast as you can go, then run it like you have all day. Which way had more A hits. I know, I know, you never miss the A zone at speed.

460Kodiak
June 26, 2014, 09:10 AM
I do find it interesting though, that it is pretty easy to find accounts of even ipsc shooters firing ten or so rounds and hitting nothing, then reminding themselves to slow down and getting a hit.

It is also pretty easy to find accounts of people getting killed while trying to reload after shooting their gun dry.

I don't think anyone is advocating spray and pray tactics, nor that speed is everything. Speed is nothing without accuracy. Failing to hit your target makes speed completely irrelevant.

I do see your point though. You asked Having said all of this, does anyone know of a documented gunfight that was lost because someone wasn't shooting fast enough split times? What say you?


and got one actual answer and a lot ot discussion. However, your title and initial thoughts implied fairly clearly your feelings on the matter, that you do in fact think we worry too much about speed. Phrases like "too obsessed" can only be answered with opinions, as it is applying a value system to a theory that, thankfully, most people will never have a chance to test, and has an inherant opinion basis on your part.

I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue with

"If you choose to employ a firearm for self defense, and are forced to shoot an attacker because retreat will not be an effective means of self preservation, the quickest and most effective way to stop the attacker is to shoot he/she/it as quickly as possible and in a part of his/her/its body that is likely to cause an incapacitating injury."

However, hitting an attacker quickly, in ANY part of it's body quickly will be the fastest way to deter that attacker. Right? So....... obsessed? No, it is an integral part of defense. It's kind of like asking, "Are we too obsessed with steering our cars?" Of course not. We wouldn't arrive at our destination if we didn't.

So you really asked two questions. You asked for exampoles, but also a value based question in your title. I think you got exactly what you asked for.

Are there many examples of someone ineffectively protecting themselves because they did not shoot fast enough? Apparently not. Are we too obsessed with speed? No, because a lack of examples does not invalidate the theory that quick hits will stop a threat more efficiently than slow hits.

Sam1911
June 26, 2014, 09:58 AM
Nice tongue in cheek smart responce. Nicely dismissive. Wouldn't have asked if I hadn't thought that perhaps someone else knew of some real world, not IPSC gaming, related accounts of shootingsApparently not. Ergo, since the opinions of the other here aren't instructive, there is no reason for you to alter the opinion you started with.

We are on page six, and I have still gotten only things like, "truth be known, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C." While this sounds nice, we all know this is not true. If it were, Jerry Miculek would never miss in competition. I think you might have missed the point. Or maybe two. But I'm probably wrong.

Practice whatever makes you feel confident and don't worry about others' opinions.

David E
June 26, 2014, 10:29 AM
Wouldn't have asked if I hadn't thought that perhaps someone else knew of some real world, not IPSC gaming, related accounts of shootings.


I recounted the IPSC shooter who was in Iraq and killed several people with relative ease, given his IPSC background.

We are on page six, and I have still gotten only things like, "truth be known, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C." While this sounds nice, we all know this is not true. If it were, Jerry Miculek would never miss in competition. Try shooting an IPSC course of fire running as fast as you can go, then run it like you have all day. Which way had more A hits. I know, I know, you never miss the A zone at speed.


You are confused.

You're taking one statement, misunderstanding it, then combining it with other factors.

Take Jerry. Stand him up in front of an IPSC target at 7 yds. Have him rip off 6 shots as fast as he can. All A's. He can do that all day for you. Fast.

As I said, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C. The gun kicks, it settles back down where it was 14/100ths before and the second shot is launched and lands very close to the first one. This is verifiably true.

But a match doesn't consist of one target that's shot while standing in front of it. Instead, it involves multiple targets, movement (including targets), obstacles, awkward shooting positions that prevent "proper technique," etc, etc. ALL these things contribute to the difficulty of the match and the shots it requires. Add to that, each shooter is trying to multi-task as they run thru each stage at high speed. As a result, it's difficult to give each shot 100% focus and attention.

But stand them up in front of a single target at 7 yds, they'll rip off a sub two second Bill Drill all in the A zone. All day.

Look at the Bianchi Cup, as that's a better example. The time frames are fixed, so everyone has the same time to shoot their shots.

For the past 10-15 years, if you didn't shoot a perfect score, you didn't win.

murf
June 26, 2014, 12:24 PM
couldbeanyone,

glad you asked the question. a lot of useful info given for an important topic.

your question is a loaded one. from the viewpoint of the loser of the confrontation, the answer is always "yes". from the viewpoint of the winner, the answer is always "no".

the quality that separates the two combatants is practice (which incorporates both speed and accuracy).

my opinion,

murf

Ankeny
June 26, 2014, 01:32 PM
I do find it interesting though, that it is pretty easy to find accounts of even ipsc shooters firing ten or so rounds and hitting nothing, then reminding themselves to slow down and getting a hit. True enough because there are all levels of IPSC shooters in the game. FWIW, many of the better shooters rarely think in terms of consiously slowing down or sprreding up when actually on the trigger. Their speed is dictated by other factors.

Art Eatman
June 26, 2014, 02:13 PM
Kinda like driving a race car. You work on "smooth" and speed comes naturally.

Stand in one spot and draw and fire on a target at seven yards and you should easily be able to hit COM in 0.9 seconds. (Chip McCormick's been timed at just under 0.8, in his younger days.) In the real world, both you and the target might be moving--which is a whole 'nother ball game.

Having that front sight back on target quick-quick takes lots of practice as well as thinking through the process.

Accuracy with maximum speed is the deal. It's not one or the other; it's both. You work up to your own body's limit and that's as good as it gets.

David E
June 26, 2014, 02:45 PM
Kinda like driving a race car. You work on "smooth" and speed comes naturally.

To a point. After which, you need to specifically pursue speed while maintaining accuracy.

Stand in one spot and draw and fire on a target at seven yards and you should easily be able to hit COM in 0.9 seconds. (Chip McCormick's been timed at just under 0.8, in his younger days.)

I suspect he was faster than that. Today, there are guys in the .6's and .5's

Having that front sight back on target quick-quick takes lots of practice as well as thinking through the process.

You want to reach the point where you don't have to "think" about anything, much less "through the process." Your goal is to be fully and keenly aware of what you're doing, but not having to clutter your mind thinking about any of it. You're simply monitoring your shooting. J. Michael Plaxco describes it well in his book, "Shooting From Within."

Kleanbore
June 26, 2014, 03:09 PM
Posted by couldbeanyone: Wouldn't have asked if I hadn't thought that perhaps someone else knew of some real world, not IPSC gaming, related accounts of shootings.


....after five pages, only David E way back in post number nine even attempted to give an account of not shooting fast enough splits causing a bad outcome in a real shooting.

Are you surprised? Your questions was,

Having said all of this, does anyone know of a documented gunfight that was lost because someone wasn't shooting fast enough split times? What say you?Did you really expect to find such an example? Think about it. First, you would have to analyze various actual shooting incidents and determine whether the "losers" were in fact competitors or had in fact measured their split times in practice at various distances. Then you would have to try to find out what happened and why the shooter lost. Assessing whether the loss might have had some relationship to split times would then involve a lot of guesswork, don't you think? Remember that you would have very few actual cases and objective data with which to work, and there are a lot of variables.

After five pages of testimony about how incredibly fast some people are, and how to win ipsc matches, and how to practice or not, to get faster, I would have to say that we are pretty obsessed with speed. Whether too obsessed or not I will leave up to you. Who are "we"? Top competitors have to be very fast, without missing. Are they "obsessed" with speed? I say not.

Most of us are not top competitors. For us, it's a matter of being able react quickly enough to survive what essentially would amount to an ambush, by recognizing the threat, drawing and presenting quickly from concealment and preferably while moving, and shooting as quickly and as rapidly as possible, while achieving the level of precision appropriate for the situation at hand.

I really, really do not want to fall short in either speed or combat accuracy in the real world. Am I "obsessed with speed"?

Not in my opinion, but I am concerned about speed, and by that I do not mean about split times. I refer to the speeds of recognition, of reaction, of drawing, and of hitting the target(s) effectively without hitting anyone else.

Art Eatman
June 26, 2014, 06:24 PM
Agree, David E.

The .6s and .5s come from the newer style holsters, I imagine, as compared to the leather of the early 1980s. :)

Seems to me that at first, "thinking it through" gets you to the most efficient sequence. After that, it's practice and repetition which makes it reflexive. The so-called "muscle memory" of a sequence. Once you have that down, you can push yourself for improvement in both accuracy and speed.

(I hope that I've phrased all this halfway reasonable. :))

couldbeanyone
June 27, 2014, 08:50 PM
No, because a lack of examples does not invalidate the theory that quick hits will stop a threat more efficiently than slow hits.

I am not questioning that quick hits are better than slow hits. The question at hand is hits, quality of hits, mindset, and all of this under attack, not in a match.

Other than this I can find no fault with anything you have said and I thank you for your input 460Kodiak.

couldbeanyone
June 27, 2014, 09:07 PM
Who are "we"?

"We" are the average shooter or the average member of this forum whichever you prefer.

Most of us are not top competitors. For us, it's a matter of being able react quickly enough to survive what essentially would amount to an ambush, by recognizing the threat, drawing and presenting quickly from concealment and preferably while moving, and shooting as quickly and as rapidly as possible, while achieving the level of precision appropriate for the situation at hand.

Amen, brother. The question I am exploring is mindset in practice, accuracy, but quickly, or speed with a slight suffering of accuracy at times. Aminor distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

David E
June 27, 2014, 09:13 PM
I am not questioning that quick hits are better than slow hits.

But you seem to argue that a fast hit cannot be the same quality as a slow hit. It can be.

But even so, here's an ideal bad situation as I see it: armed badguy demands whatever, putting you in fear for your life. You decide to draw. Just as you clear the holster and slightly rotate the muzzle, you put shot #1 in his ankle, shot #2 in his knee, shot #3 in his groin, shot #4 in his stomach, shot #5 center chest and shot #6 in the throat. I'm thinking that you won't need shot #7.

The question at hand is hits, quality of hits, mindset, and all of this under attack, not in a match.


But your original question was "Are we too obsessed with speed?" Maybe you need a new thread for your new topics.

As long as you can hit, you're not too obsessed with speed.

couldbeanyone
June 27, 2014, 09:21 PM
You work up to your own body's limit and that's as good as it gets.

My current limit is about a .21 split, it used to be a little faster and will probably only get worse, but this is as fast as my aged, beat up, slightly arthritic trigger finger will manipulate a double action revolver trigger.

couldbeanyone
June 27, 2014, 09:53 PM
You are confused. You're taking one statement, misunderstanding it, then combining it with other factors.

Take Jerry. Stand him up in front of an IPSC target at 7 yds. Have him rip off 6 shots as fast as he can. All A's. He can do that all day for you. Fast.

As I said, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C. The gun kicks, it settles back down where it was 14/100ths before and the second shot is launched and lands very close to the first one. This is verifiably true.

But a match doesn't consist of one target that's shot while standing in front of it. Instead, it involves multiple targets, movement (including targets), obstacles, awkward shooting positions that prevent "proper technique," etc, etc. ALL these things contribute to the difficulty of the match and the shots it requires. Add to that, each shooter is trying to multi-task as they run thru each stage at high speed. As a result, it's difficult to give each shot 100% focus and attention.

But stand them up in front of a single target at 7 yds, they'll rip off a sub two second Bill Drill all in the A zone. All day.

I am not "confused". You are the only one here talking about bill drills or shooting at a single target. Even with no more practice time than I have available, I can keep them all in the A zone on a single target to the limit of my arthritic trigger finger "all day long".

I have seen Jerry Miculek miss on a plate rack while standing dead still on more than one occasion. If you don't believe me, there are examples on youtube. He wouldn't have missed these plates slow fire. How do I know, because I wouldn't have missed them slow fire. The point is that speed and accuracy at the ultimate limit are in conflict with each other. And, what Jerry can do really has little to do with the average mortal can do. I was only using him to show that the ultimate accuracy of even the best will degrade when pushed to the limits of their speed.

I thank you as you are the only one to provide with any "real world" examples of the sort I have been seeking. But, if you think I am going to sit here and allow you to be condescending to me with your, " poor little feller has got himself confused, he just don't understand how good we really are" attitude, I assure you that you have misjudged me. I am well aware of just how fast and accurate the top flight shooters are. I am also aware that these same shooters will occasionally miss shots at speed that they would never miss at a sedate rate of fire.

I came here to have a nice discussion, but if you want to continue to be condescending and talk down to me like I just fell off the turnip truck, we can go at it till this sucker gets locked. Your choice.

David E
June 28, 2014, 12:28 AM
Even with no more practice time than I have available, I can keep them all in the A zone on a single target to the limit of my arthritic trigger finger "all day long".

Then....you make my point.

I have seen Jerry Miculek miss on a plate rack while standing dead still on more than one occasion. If you don't believe me, there are examples on youtube. He wouldn't have missed these plates slow fire.

Nor would he have won the match. But you're introducing target transitions and a pretty small target at at least 10 yds.

How do I know, because I wouldn't have missed them slow fire.

Think not? Add some pressure to the mix and that might change. Even if true, Jerry would beat you every time, even with a miss or even two.

The point is that speed and accuracy at the ultimate limit are in conflict with each other.

Ok, this is an interesting statement. I'm going to surmise that "speed at the ultimate" is going as fast as humanly possible, accuracy be damned. But what about the "ultimate limit of accuracy?" Do you mean placing each shot directly on a shirt button? If it's the slightest bit off center, did you fail the quest for "ultimate accuracy?"

When it comes to shooting for defense, defining an acceptable target is essential. You may only accept a shot that hits the second shirt button. I accept "C" zone or better. Clearly, it's easier to hit a larger target faster than a tiny one.

And, what Jerry can do really has little to do with the average mortal can do. I was only using him to show that the ultimate accuracy of even the best will degrade when pushed to the limits of their speed.

You misrepresented the point, but Jerry's "degraded" accuracy is still better than some peoples slow accuracy.

If you think I am going to sit here and allow you to be condescending to me with your, " poor little feller has got himself confused, he just don't understand how good we really are" attitude, I assure you that you have misjudged me.

You called me a liar but you think I'm the offending party.....interesting.

I said it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C. Then I explained why that is.

I am well aware of just how fast and accurate the top flight shooters are. I am also aware that these same shooters will occasionally miss shots at speed that they would never miss at a sedate rate of fire

Again, that wasn't your original question. Do you think they'd win shooting at your speed? Are they "too obsessed with speed?"

I came here to have a nice discussion, but if you want to continue to be condescending and talk down to me like I just fell off the turnip truck, we can go at it till this sucker gets locked. Your choice.


Go at what, exactly?

I'm saying that if you can hit the target at speed, then you're not obsessed with speed.

I knew a guy that asked how I shot a stage once. I told him my time and that it was clean. He scoffed then bragged about how he'd shot the stage faster than I did. He forgot to mention the 3 misses and 2 no-shoots he had.

Now HE was too obsessed with speed!

murf
June 28, 2014, 12:46 AM
couldbeanyone,

gotta have thick skin around here. nothing personal intended.

speed and accuracy only conflict if you let them. they should compliment each other.

and, i think, we are not obsessed with speed. we are obsessed with winning. to win, one must be faster and more accurate than your opponent. if you are obsessed with speed only, you will lose. if you are confident that accuracy without speed is sufficient, you will lose.

winning is just human nature. probably why there are six pages to this thread.

murf

Hangingrock
June 28, 2014, 08:39 AM
gotta have thick skin around here. nothing personal intended. The other option is the ignore feature. If an individual drives you to the point of distraction place that person on your ignore list.

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 08:51 AM
Then....you make my point.

Nor would he have won the match. But you're introducing target transitions and a pretty small target at at least 10 yds.

We are talking about self defense, of course there is movement and very likely target transitions. I do not make your point. I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards.

40-82
June 28, 2014, 08:59 AM
At close range a trained shooter can get accurate enough hits at his top speed. Either he is fast enough to solve his problem or he isn't. He's doing his best and there's isn't time to think about speed vs. accuracy. He reacts as he is trained. When the distance begins to open up, the relationship of speed and accuracy begins to get interesting. At some distance depending upon the level of ability of the individual shooter he will need to slow down to make the hits he needs. To hit his target he will have to slow to a level of speed that probably won't stop an opponent of unknown abilities from getting one or more shots off. That's the moment of truth, when you learn whether your mental discipline is strong enough to take the time you need because you know that none of your misses can help you.

45_auto
June 28, 2014, 09:04 AM
I am not questioning that quick hits are better than slow hits. The question at hand is hits, quality of hits, mindset, and all of this under attack, not in a match.


So what exactly are you questioning???

Seems to me that it should be pretty obvious that hits are better than misses, higher "quality" hits (more probability of a stop) are better than lower quality hits, and a winning mindset is better than a losing mindset, whether in a match or under attack.

What's your question?

Kleanbore
June 28, 2014, 09:16 AM
Posted by couldbeanyone: "We" are the average shooter or the average member of this forum whichever you prefer.I kinda doubt that either uses a shot timer very often or worries much about split times.

We are talking about self defense, .... I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards.I don't think trying to shoot rapidly at 60 yards would represent a prudent investment of time and money.

If we are talking about self defense, isn't it much more likely that we will have to deal with someone who is much closer? Isn't it likely to prove more important to be able to recognize a threat, react, draw while moving, and score some hits very quickly before you are done in?

If the threat has moved rapidly to within three yards from where you had been walking before you start shooting, will your having practiced keeping them all in the A at 7 yards as fast as you can pull the trigger really help you very much?

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 09:17 AM
Think not? Add some pressure to the mix and that might change. Even if true, Jerry would beat you every time, even with a miss or even two.

Of course Jerry would beat me, but the question is which way would Jerry miss more, slow or fast.

Ok, this is an interesting statement. I'm going to surmise that "speed at the ultimate" is going as fast as humanly possible, accuracy be damned. But what about the "ultimate limit of accuracy?" Do you mean placing each shot directly on a shirt button? If it's the slightest bit off center, did you fail the quest for "ultimate accuracy?"

When it comes to shooting for defense, defining an acceptable target is essential. You may only accept a shot that hits the second shirt button. I accept "C" zone or better. Clearly, it's easier to hit a larger target faster than a tiny one.

By speed and accuracy at the ultimate, I mean for instance, shooting at a two inch bullseye at 25 yards, the faster you go, the harder it will be to hit that bullseye every time.

Shooting for defense, I could live with C hits, but my point is that if I don't hold myself to a higher standard during practice, my performance under fire isn't likely to meet that C zone standard.

If someone was to say it was ok that his gun only held 5 shots because he would just shoot em in the head, you would be the first one here to tell him about the fog of war and that the head is a mighty small target with adrenaline and tunnel vision and fight or flight. Rightly so. Yet on this thread you are acting like because you can do something in practice, that you are going to ,like a robot, automatically be able to do it under attack. It can't be both ways.

Kleanbore
June 28, 2014, 09:23 AM
Yet on this thread you are acting like because you can do something in practice, that you are going to ,like a robot, automatically be able to do it under attack.I missed that...

40-82
June 28, 2014, 09:40 AM
couldbeanyone "I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards."

This statement rattled loose a question that I've been thinking about for a long time. A common response to being under fire from the reports I read is to return fire in the general direction of the incoming as fast as the person can empty his weapon. As far as I understand it, such a response amounts to a panicked waste of resources. I know anyone might miss his shot under enough pressure, but if there any value that anyone can see in letting go of a round that you didn't expect to hit its mark

Ankeny
June 28, 2014, 09:44 AM
Accuracy with maximum speed is the deal. It's not one or the other; it's both. You work up to your own body's limit and that's as good as it gets. Yup, that pretty much sums it up. The OP started out talking about splits and accuracy. The thread has meandered around a bit, but splits are pretty much a matter of vision, isolation of the trigger finger, and recoil management. Shooting splits are a simple concept, but that doesn't necessarily translate into easy.

I suppose draw speed is another "speed" topic that shooters become obsessed over. There comes a point when a shooter can only physically draw just so fast. The time to the shot can often be reduced by simply decreasing what is deemed visually acceptable to make the shot. In that case, accuracy requirements must also be reduced. I guess that's a long way to say even though the physical presentation speed remains the same, the time spent on the sights is reduced.

As far as getting an A zone hit just as fast as I can manipulate the trigger, that depends on the distance to the target. Obviously, if I am at a distance where I can get A's as fast as I can go...well duh. If that distance increases accuracy decreases. The time difference between being in control and just slapping the trigger as fast as possible isn't as much as some would think.

David E
June 28, 2014, 09:44 AM
We are talking about self defense, of course there is movement and very likely target transitions. I do not make your point. I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards.


I thought we/you were talking about self defense now?

But as far as shooting itself goes, there is something called "cadence." This is dictated by either the distance or the size of the available target. Or should be.

Not everyone understands that. If your Bill Drill at 5 yds is just as fast as your Bill Drill at 60, one if them is wrong. And it probably isn't the one at 5 yds.

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 09:47 AM
You called me a liar but you think I'm the offending party.....interesting.

I said it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C. Then I explained why that is.

So, your contention is that at sixty yards that you can shoot an A as fast as a C? I only ask, because we are talking about self defense. If some fool starts shooting at me at any range between point blank and a thousand yards, you can bet that I am going to do my best to return fire. So don't give me the combat range is 7 yards line of thought.

Again, that wasn't your original question. Do you think they'd win shooting at your speed? Are they "too obsessed with speed?"

Again, we are talking about self defense, not winning a match. If I miss a plate on a plate rack in a match, it doesn't matter, if I am fast enough. If I miss in a gunfight, it might have the unintended consequence of killing a five year old girl two blocks down the street. I REALLY wouldn't want that to happen.

One of my main points of this thread was, how much tighter might my standards have to be in practice, to get the results I want when the fur is flying and someone is shooting at me.

Nowhere, did I say I didn't want to be fast, I only said I think a lot of people might be better off practicing for self defence by limiting their speed to a level at which they can be sure of getting an A zone hit at whatever range. I say this because an A hit in practice will almost surely degrade with someone shooting at you in reality. Of course, I'm sure you will be along shortly to say that isn't true.

David E
June 28, 2014, 10:13 AM
Of course Jerry would beat me, but the question is which way would Jerry miss more, slow or fast.

Since this is now about self defense, that's the wrong question. It should be "which method will let Jerry win?

Shooting for defense, I could live with C hits, but my point is that if I don't hold myself to a higher standard during practice, my performance under fire isn't likely to meet that C zone standard.

I see this belief often: "If I can hit small at distance slow fire, then I can hit big up close, fast." Not really. If this is how he shoots all the time, then the shooter is teaching himself to go slow, regardless of distance.

you are acting like because you can do something in practice, that you are going to ,like a robot, automatically be able to do it under attack. It can't be both ways.


Where did I say that?

I will say that the more you practice something, the less you have to think about it.

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 10:37 AM
Quote:
Shooting for defense, I could live with C hits, but my point is that if I don't hold myself to a higher standard during practice, my performance under fire isn't likely to meet that C zone standard.


I see this belief often: "If I can hit small at distance slow fire, then I can hit big up close, fast." Not really. If this is how he shoots all the time, then the shooter is teaching himself to go slow, regardless of distance.

How you get that out of what I said, I'll never know. What I said is I will slow down enough to always get an A. At five yards I won't have to slow down at all, at 25 yards I'll have to slow down some. But for me, all A hits when practicing for self defense.

David E
June 28, 2014, 10:41 AM
So, your contention is that at sixty yards that you can shoot an A as fast as a C?

Wow, you sure like introducing things at the last second, then act like it was in the OP when you don't like the responses. :rolleyes:

But, yes, strictly speaking, you can shoot A's as fast as C's at 60 yds. But don't be confused thinking you can shoot A's at 60 yds just as fast as you can at 7 yds.

I only ask, because we are talking about self defense.

Yet, you keep bringing up 60 yds.

don't give me the combat range is 7 yards line of thought.

First of all, I never did. Second of all, I agree and have previously extolled the importance of being capable of long range accuracy with a handgun, regardless of the size or caliber.

Again, we are talking about self defense, not winning a match.

Shooting for your life is the ultimate competition. And speedy hits matter.

One of my main points of this thread was, how much tighter might my standards have to be in practice, to get the results I want when the fur is flying and someone is shooting at me.

I surely didn't see that point being made. What is your standard now?

If you have a 5 yr old girl down range, then change your angle or don't shoot. If it's more dangerous NOT to take the shot, then make sure you'll hit.

You seem to think that being able to shoot fast somehow requires shooting fast at all times.

I think a lot of people might be better off practicing for self defence by limiting their speed to a level at which they can be sure of getting an A zone hit at whatever range.

The best way to practice speed and accuracy is to find out how fast you can go and still hit. It doesn't "just happen," as many seem to think it does.

I say this because an A hit in practice will almost surely degrade with someone shooting at you in reality.


Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the person, more than anything else.

When I was a cop, I had a fellow deputy tell me smugly that, "when bullets start flying, you're going to lose 20% in accuracy, so your 100% score today doesn't mean squat." But he somehow thought that his feeble 80% score would somehow remain unchanged.

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 10:50 AM
Look folks all I am trying to say here is that there has to be a reason your AVERAGE person in a gunfight misses so much. I am reasonably sure it isn't because they are holding themselves to too high of a standard in practice or that they are shooting too slowly. Misses in a gunfight can have all kinds of consequences.

All I am trying to say is that unless someone has lots of REAL WORLD evidence that slower split times in a gunfight means certain failure, then holding ourselves to higher standard in practice MIGHT be worth considering. I don't ask you to agree with me, if you want to accept the occasional C zone hit in practice, power to you. I just asl that you don't misconstrue what I am trying to say.:banghead:

Kleanbore
June 28, 2014, 10:59 AM
Posted by couldbeanyone: How you get that

[" I see this belief often: 'If I can hit small at distance slow fire, then I can hit big up close, fast.' Not really. If this is how he shoots all the time, then the shooter is teaching himself to go slow, regardless of distance."]

out of what I said, I'll never knowDavid E did not tribute that statement to you; he simply made the observation. I think it is very valid and relevant to the discussion.

All I am trying to say is that unless someone has lots of REAL WORLD evidence that slower split times in a gunfight means certain failure...Come now! Do you really believe that there have ever been any objective measurements of "split times" in a gunfight?

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 10:59 AM
If you have a 5 yr old girl down range, then change your angle or don't shoot. If it's more dangerous NOT to take the shot, then make sure you'll hit.

You seem to think that being able to shoot fast somehow requires shooting fast at all times.

If a five year old girl is two blocks down range in a gunfight, it his highly unlikely that you are even going to see her.:rolleyes:

Never said that. Said I could shoot fast close up, and would slow down to whatever speed required to get an A hit at range.

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 11:07 AM
Come now! Do you really believe that there have ever been any objective measurements of "split times" in a gunfight?

You know what I am saying. There have been plenty of gunfights won by slower delibarate fire, there have been plenty lost spraying lead out at machine gun speed and vice versa. I am finding precious little REAL WORLD evidence that one method is vastly superior to the other.

David E
June 28, 2014, 11:09 AM
Look folks all I am trying to say here is that there has to be a reason your AVERAGE person in a gunfight misses so much.

There is. He doesn't practice much.

Aren't all of us here striving to be better than average?]

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 11:16 AM
But, yes, strictly speaking, you can shoot A's as fast as C's at 60 yds. But don't be confused thinking you can shoot A's at 60 yds just as fast as you can at 7 yds.

I guess this is why benchrest shooters always shoot so rapidly.:rolleyes:

And speedy hits matter


Absolutely, and the key word is hits. We are supposed to be talking about what method of practice best insures these hits for an AVERAGE person.

Kleanbore
June 28, 2014, 11:17 AM
Posted by couildbeanyone: If a five year old girl is two blocks down range in a gunfight, it his highly unlikely that you are even going to see her.David E's comment was, "If you have a 5 yr old girl down range, then change your angle or don't shoot. If it's more dangerous NOT to take the shot, then make sure you'll hit." It is very valid indeed, and very important.

In my opinion, the first thing that one should think after "Threat" and "Draw" is "Backstop".

I first saw that in writing when pax related an actual experience on The Firing Line. I then realized that that was exactly what went through my mind when I happened upon a robbery that was about to happen in a store.

If that is not part of your thinking, I suggest that you change your thinking.

[Moderator Hat] By inserting "two blocks" you simply became argumentative. Lets have more light and less heat here.

couldbeanyone
June 28, 2014, 11:25 AM
[Moderator Hat] By inserting "two blocks" you simply became argumentative. Lets have more light and less heat here.


I inserted nothing, if you actually read it I clearly stated "two blocks" in post 156. It could happen, and you can't see everything in that type of a situation, can you?

With this I will have to leave you for now, as I have what is lately an increasingly rare oportunity to go shooting.

Kleanbore
June 28, 2014, 11:26 AM
Posted by couldbeanyone: You know what I am saying. There have been plenty of gunfights won by slower delibarate fire, there have been plenty lost spraying lead out at machine gun speed and vice versa. I am finding precious little REAL WORLD evidence that one method is vastly superior to the other.How would anyone have divined what you were thinking? You asked about split times. Aren't split times measured on the basis of hits?

What do you mean by "method"? Shooting quickly and stopping an assailant timely vs shooting slowly and hoping that that will suffice?

David E
June 28, 2014, 11:30 AM
I guess this is why benchrest shooters always shoot so rapidly.:rolleyes:


This is getting predictable now. :rolleyes:

If the BR shooters had their score divided by time, you can bet they'd shoot faster.

We are supposed to be talking about what method of practice best insures these hits for an AVERAGE person.

Maybe YOU are, but I am not. I do not want to be "average," and neither do my students.

If someone wants to take refuge in the safety of "average," where nothing is demanded or expected, then go ahead.

Good shooters leave "average" behind them rather quickly.

Kleanbore
June 28, 2014, 11:59 AM
Posted by couldbeanyone: ....I clearly stated "two blocks" in post 156. It could happen, and you can't see everything in that type of a situation, can you?One more time: think BACKSTOP.

You may not always be a able to do that, but you have to understand that bullets do not run out of lethal energy in a short distance, and one cannot rely on a hit in lung tissue to stop one, either.

When one moves after recognizing a threat, one objective is to try to keep from being where the threat is heading; another should be to try to reduce the risk of collateral damage due to either misses or pass-through hits.

Your training should address that. Standing seven yards in front of a target you have been thinking about and shooting as fast as you can will not.

Try this: as you walk from the store or the restaurant toward your car, stay off the cell-phone and look around. Look not only at other people and what they seem to be doing, but look for cars, corners, alley openings, dumpsters, and other things that could conceal a surprise assailant.

Also try to be aware of who may be behind you.

Adjust your direction as indicated.

Does that sound extreme? Two years a go when I had a problem with mobility as I left a no-gun location, I noticed four or five rough looking people observing me intently and spreading out to different locations in the parking lot. Had my car not been in a handicapped spot right outside the building, I would have gone back inside.

I would not have done anything differently had I been armed. I do not like "gunfights".

But I digress. You are walking to your car. You are looking at people, places, and things. While you are looking around for a possible threat, consider what you would do should one present itself. That should include where and how you would move, and in what direction you might be able to fire if you have to, while exposing bystanders, seen and unseen, to minimum risk.

That might extend beyond five blocks--think backstop.

Iggy
June 28, 2014, 08:33 PM
Never mind.

eam3clm@att.net
June 29, 2014, 04:57 AM
In my expierence as a LEO, situational awarness is the most important factor. Having that head start of knowing whats going on around you and being prepared before the threat becomes an immediate threat.
A few years ago a federal agency was nice enough to let us use their "FACTS" machine for training. This is a computer program that uses a projector display that plays a video and we had to respond to the situation that was being played. If it was a shoot situation, or if we thought it was, we had a handgun that had a laser that the program picked up. The replay would show where the shot hit, if it was a fatal shot, and who shot first (suspect or you). It was a little unfair because the program assumed that it the suspect got a shot off first, it assumed that you had gotten hit and was down, but it served its purpose in showing the facts of a shooting.
It really showed the importance of our reaction time. For example one of the senarios we were required to handle was a situation inside a residence that involved two subjects. One subject we were attempting to arrest and the other appears from another room with a handgun drawn, but held down to his side. This person was not super fast and his movements were actually quite sluggish, but if we waited until the first instance that he began to raise his weapon to shoot, he always got a round off first even when we had our laser gun pointed directly at him. This really drove home to me how important a reaction was too slow and we needed to act instead of react.
Other people may disagree with me but I believe in the theory that there are two types of shooting. One is target shooting where you make slow deliberate super well aimed shots. The other is combat type shooting where the shots are faster, but are still aimed. You trade off that extra margin of accuracy for faster shooting. If you already shoot poorly it's only going to get worse though.
You also have to factor in your bodies response to a life or death situation. as your blood pressure rises (it will), you loose fine motor skills. You will also lose some hearing and you will develope tunnel vision. How much of these abilities you lose depends on several factors and they can get progressively worse depending on the situation and how long it lasts. Simple tings like smoothly pulling a trigger without moving the sights on target goes unnoticed. That respiratory pause between shots, well your body is trying to suck in as much air as it can. If you want to duplicate real life in your trainning then put on your shooting glasses first so they will get nice and fogged up. Put a straw in your mouth and breath through the straw. Then do some rapid cardio running, push-ups, jumping jacks, and them run to the firing line to see how well you shoot. Have a friend place an unknown to you object beside the target and be honest to yourself if you really saw it or not as you shot.

couldbeanyone
June 29, 2014, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Posted by couldbeanyone: ....I clearly stated "two blocks" in post 156. It could happen, and you can't see everything in that type of a situation, can you?
One more time: think BACKSTOP.

You may not always be a able to do that, but you have to understand that bullets do not run out of lethal energy in a short distance, and one cannot rely on a hit in lung tissue to stop one, either.

When one moves after recognizing a threat, one objective is to try to keep from being where the threat is heading; another should be to try to reduce the risk of collateral damage due to either misses or pass-through hits.

Your training should address that. Standing seven yards in front of a target you have been thinking about and shooting as fast as you can will not.

Try this: as you walk from the store or the restaurant toward your car, stay off the cell-phone and look around. Look not only at other people and what they seem to be doing, but look for cars, corners, alley openings, dumpsters, and other things that could conceal a surprise assailant.

Also try to be aware of who may be behind you.

Adjust your direction as indicated.

Does that sound extreme? Two years a go when I had a problem with mobility as I left a no-gun location, I noticed four or five rough looking people observing me intently and spreading out to different locations in the parking lot. Had my car not been in a handicapped spot right outside the building, I would have gone back inside.

I would not have done anything differently had I been armed. I do not like "gunfights".

But I digress. You are walking to your car. You are looking at people, places, and things. While you are looking around for a possible threat, consider what you would do should one present itself. That should include where and how you would move, and in what direction you might be able to fire if you have to, while exposing bystanders, seen and unseen, to minimum risk.

That might extend beyond five blocks--think backstop.


All excellent advise. However, you have just bought grocerys, you cross the parking lot wonderfully aware of everything around you, you start to put the grocerys in the trunk and the bag breaks. You now mutter under your breath and bend down to pick up the fallen items, now Murphy being who he is, is when you are attacked. Is everyone and everything still where it was when you bent over? Think back stop is great advice, but how about we think DON'T MISS while we are at it?

couldbeanyone
June 29, 2014, 12:07 PM
Quote:
We are supposed to be talking about what method of practice best insures these hits for an AVERAGE person.
Maybe YOU are, but I am not. I do not want to be "average," and neither do my students.

If someone wants to take refuge in the safety of "average," where nothing is demanded or expected, then go ahead.

Good shooters leave "average" behind them rather quickly.

Oh snap, oh sting, really put us in our place didn't you. I'll just be over here crying myself to sleep, mired in my mediocrity. Along with about a thousand other average shooters on this forum.:rolleyes:

Kleanbore
June 29, 2014, 12:13 PM
Let's knock off the snide remarks.

David E
June 29, 2014, 12:22 PM
Oh snap, oh sting, really put us in our place didn't you. I'll just be over here crying myself to sleep, mired in my mediocrity. Along with about a thousand other average shooters on this forum.:rolleyes:


You sell yourself and 1000 others short.

You, me and they are, simply by coming to this forum, better than the "average" shooter.

Maybe you need a different perspective.

Kleanbore
June 29, 2014, 01:07 PM
Posted by David E: You, me and they are, simply by coming to this forum, better than the "average" shooter. I do not think that that is a given.

I know people who log in here who carry J-Frame revolvers that they haven't fired since they qualified for their CCW licenses.

People differ in terms of what they think the "average" shooter is. I try to get to the range about once a week, and I generally shoot at a B-27 target at seven yards (the targets are not illuminated when they are closer). I shoot rather rapidly, and I vary the number of shots in each string, and sometimes the time between shots.

I cannot draw the gun at my range.

I get most shots inside the nine or better, and all but very few inside the eight. I have just transitioned to a new carry piece, and that involves something of a learning curve, at least for me. I strive to get all shots into the upper chest area quickly. Sometimes I try for greater precision. I notice people in other lanes shooting tight groups slowly and others firing slowly and less accurately than I could throw darts in a pub after a few beers. Occasionally I hear someone firing faster than I do but hitting very poorly.

I have neither the interest nor the time nor the physical condition to try to get to a competitive level.

I worry less about whether I could score hits rapidly enough on a moving assailant at close range; more about being able to recognize a bad situation timely and react, draw, present, and fire in time; more about having a safe, clear shot when the need arises; and even more about addressing a malfunction in a "Tueller" situation.

Am I "better than Average"? I think so--I've been shooting handguns for about half a century, but not frequently until rather recently.

But then, it seems that every American man would like to think that he is at least better than average when it comes to shooting, driving a car, grilling steaks, choosing tires, judging beer, negotiating prices, and perhaps, judging from many of the posts I read, maintaining constant three hundred and sixty degree situational awareness.

Right now I am thinking a lot about refresher training--someone calling out what to shoot and when, and providing some coaching. When it cools off a little, I will do something about it.

browningguy
June 29, 2014, 01:11 PM
There is a lot of pontificating here and its really pretty simple.

The fastest guy to get rounds on target usually wins.

And for the guys that don't think the shooting games don't matter you are just fooling yourselves. If you can't be fast and accurate when it's a game you won't magically get that way in a real gunfight.

David E
June 29, 2014, 01:21 PM
I submit that the "average" gun owner doesn't come to this forum seeking out advice or just reading posts about guns. Why? Because they don't care enough about guns to spend the time to learn about them, much less how to shoot them better.

But it does depend how we ID the "average" gun owner.

There is average "gun owner," and then there is the average "shooter." They are not the same.

But I've met very few "shooters" that aspire to an "average" skill level.

Kleanbore
June 29, 2014, 03:12 PM
Posted by browningguy: The fastest guy to get rounds on target usually wins.That's the way it works in screen fiction, but considering the realities of handgun wounding effectiveness, I would phrase it this way: the defender who fails to score sufficient effective hits quickly enough will almost certainly lose.

And for the guys that don't think the shooting games don't matter you are just fooling yourselves. If you can't be fast and accurate when it's a game you won't magically get that way in a real gunfight.The shooting games do of course have an important role, but not everyone has the time or the health or the facility to participate in them.

But someone who has trained in the right things and who follows up his or her training with the right practice is much better suited for the worst kind of eventuality than one who has not and does not.

Having said that, I would remind everyone that the pistoleer who can draw quickly and knock down steel plates quickly without missing a beat is still not "there" if he or she is not also staying off the cell phone, surveying the area on all sides, and psychologically prepared to recognize and react to extreme danger without denial or disbelief.

My wife and I left a restaurant the other day to go to the car, and I suddenly realized that our path could take us into a trap, and that she would be in my way. We redirected ourselves quickly; in the event, there was no cause for alarm, but....

That should illustrate two things: the importance of situational awareness that we always talk about, and that there are distinct differences between shooting for a score at targets that are "down range" in a choreographed exercise and reacting instantly to a surprise attack from one or more unexpected directions at close range.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2014, 04:06 PM
While David E. stubbornly sticks to his position that speed over all, "a fast hit ended a fight quicker than a slow hit" I'm left wondering if those that advocate speed somehow believe if they are shot first they are DRT?

The biggest factor in surviving a gunfight is mental attitude and the will to survive at all costs.
I have known and seen several men continue to fight after being hit -- but with one exception, every one of those men died during or shortly after the fight.

A gunshot wound is not something you can shrug off.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we too obsessed with speed?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!